Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed).

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business.

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of Petitions against bill)" were omitted.

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

British Airports Authority

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of British Airport Authority staff.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): I have not met representatives of BAA staff.

Mr. Hughes: Does that not show contempt for the people who work in the BAA and have given a lifetime of service to build up the company to what it is now? As the Secretary of State is negotiating to sell the business over their heads, would it not be courteous for him to meet them and discuss their problems and anxieties about the future?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded man, so he will not mind my reminding him that I have not been asked by the staff whether I wish to see them. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows from his knowledge of my Department, no such meeting has ever taken place in the history of the BAA. Beyond that, the letter of 28 July from the chairman of the BAA to the joint staff showed the extent to which there had been full consultation, but if the staff wish to see me on any matters which come within my purview and responsibility I shall, of course, be delighted to see them.

Mr. Steen: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BAA will he remind him that it is Government policy to ensure competition, which means competition between British Airways and the independent airlines, and that allowing the BAA to indulge in unfair competition or restrictive practices is not Government policy and is frowned upon by Ministers?

Mr. Moore: The main question relates to potential meetings with BAA staff, but I am sure that the chairman of the BAA is fully aware of the Government's attitude and comitment to a policy of competition.

Channel Tunnel

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what level of capital investment by British Rail he intends to authorise in respect of the Channel Tunnel.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We have approved in principle BR investment of up to £390 million at January 1985 prices. Individual elements in the proposals will have to be submitted for detailed Government approval.

Mrs. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tunnel will create valuable opportunities for manufacturers, especially in the north, and exciting new prospects for exporters throughout the country?

Mr. Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is about £1,000 million worth of business to be picked up during the construction phase and, on average, 10,000 jobs per year will be created through the term. With reference


to the north, I am glad to say that a famous engineering company in Glasgow already has letters of intent in relation to two tunnel boring machines.

Mr. Stuart Holland: In relation to the level of capital investment that British Rail intends to authorise in respect of the Channel tunnel, will the Minister comment on the report in the latest issue of New Civil Engineer, the source of which is British Rail market analyst Ken Gibbs, and which includes comments from Kleinwort, Benson, Mowlem and others, that an entirely new, privately funded and operated rail route from Folkestone to London may be undertaken with a terminus at Victoria? Will he comment on that now, or later, and relate it to the issue of why Waterloo should be the sole flagship terminal for Channel tunnel traffic?

Mr. Mitchell: I know of no authoritative suggestion that there should be a new rail line from the coast to Victoria. British Rail has made it clear why Victoria is not suitable for the length of trains necessary for that service.

Mr. Adley: As a railway enthusiast, does my hon. Friend remember that the South Eastern Railway built a line from Tonbridge to Reading via Redhill a century ago for the purpose of a Channel tunnel and that that line was not included in the Beeching cuts? Is he aware that, sadly, that line is not now included in the major electrification scheme to enable British Rail and the Government to achieve the regional objectives for the tunnel, which are one of the main objects of the exercise? Will my hon. Friend reconsider the arrangements whereby British Rail has been asked to provide plans only for that which is absolutely essential, thus omitting those advantages?

Mr. Mitchell: I understand that British Rail is currently reviewing its initial decision that freight would be hauled from the tunnel by diesel and is now considering electrically powered haulage. That may well affect the line to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Mr. Gale: I do not wish to draw my hon. Friend on a matter which is the subject of a public inquiry, but will he confirm that in principle the Department welcomes private investment in British Rail?

Mr. Mitchell: It is up to British Rail where it sees opportunities for private investment to help, but at the moment it is not a central part of British Rail policy.

Rail Electrification

Mr. Butterfill: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what projects of rail electrification are currently awaiting his approval.

Mr. Moore: We have approved five major electrification projects submitted in the last three years. There are no further submissions outstanding. Work on four of the five electrification projects, including Bournemouth to Weymouth and Kings Cross to Edinburgh, is going ahead. The fifth, Tonbridge to Hastings, is already operational.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite apart from the benefits that these electrification schemes will bring to industry generally, they will also bring substantial benefits for the spreading of tourism away from London and especially to Dorset?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. When I had the pleasure of opening one such scheme, the local authorities

and the mayors of the areas involved were anxious to impress upon us the critical importance of tourism. Electrification will help tourism by improving not just the time but the quality and service of the trains.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anger in the west of Scotland at British Rail's proposal, following the electrification of the King's Cross to Edinburgh line, that fast trains from Glasgow should be re-routed through Edinburgh? Is he aware that there is great anxiety that this will cause considerable damage to the passenger routes in the west of Scotland and generally to the line between Glasgow and London? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is just rumour."]

Mr. Moore: As my colleagues have pointed out, it is just rumour, but I will look into the matter, because it was raised the other night. I have heard rather more compliments about electrification than I have heard complaints about the rumours to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Dr. Michael Clark: When granting approval for electrification, is it my right hon. Friend's intention also to approve the installation of automatic open level crossings? If so, will he bear in mind that such crossings have a poorer safety record than conventional crossings and that there is a great deal of resistance to them in both country and urban areas, as shown by petitions from my constituents in South Woodham Ferrers?

Mr. Moore: I am conscious of the petitions and of the point that my hon. Friend has raised. He may recall that this matter is under review. I have appointed Professor Stott to review the whole situation, because it clearly merits serious attention.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has caused vibrations as far down as Carlisle and far north west of England? I assure the Minister that there is general dissatisfaction about it all the way from Preston up to Glasgow. Will the Minister look at that issue?

Mr. Moore: I shall certainly look at that issue, but the main question relates specifically to the electrification programme, and I have confirmed that every submission put up by British Rail has been approved and that no submissions are outstanding.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Secretary of State had sight of the Government's report to the EEC, highlighted a week or so ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in which some very disparaging remarks are made about the infrastructure in Wales? When will we have electrification of our railway lines? Why should Wales always be last in the queue?

Mr. Moore: I must confess that I have not personally read every one of the 17 volumes of the report to which the hon. Member refers, although I have, of course, read everything in relation to my transport responsibilities. The Government's record on electrification is outstanding. It is extraordinary to hear a Member whose party when in government approved only £71 million worth of electrification projects criticising the Government's approval so far of £474 million. That contrast illustrates the absurdity of some of the current debate.

Mr. Steen: Before my right hon. Friend agrees to any more rail electrification projects, will he have regard to the fact that British Rail management refuses to stock British mineral water and insists that every—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is miles wide of rail electrification.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the changes at the north London line terminal, what are the plans for electrification there?

Mr. Moore: So far, every submission that we have received from British Rail relating to electrification proposals has been approved by the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great increase in traffic at the stations of Linlithgow, Polmont and Falkirk High and the success of the Edinburgh to Glasgow line in recent months? In those circumstances, is he sure that an added electrification route from Kings Cross to Edinburgh and then on to Glasgow will not damage the successful traffic between Edinburgh and Glasgow? This is very important to my constituents.

Mr. Moore: I always consider the hon. Gentleman's detailed comments carefully. I am not aware of the precise details about increases in traffic, but I shall consider the matter. I do not imagine, however, that what the hon. Gentleman has said denies the high quality investment which most people regard as of great benefit to the east coast line.

Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the statement that he has just made—that every case for electrification that has been received from British Rail has been approved? Will he consider the Manchester to Blackpool electrification case, which the Minister of State denies having rejected, presumably erroneously? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that line should be electrified on economic grounds and because it would be a satisfactory diversionary line in case of problems on the west coast main line?

Mr. Moore: To be precise, I should have said that there was one application a while back regarding Cambridge. It did not relate to the Blackpool to Manchester connection. There was no application from British Rail in that instance. The application, which was considered las year, was an application by the local authorities. When the application was examined, it was thought that sprinter diesels would provide most of the benefits at a much lower cost to taxpayers and ratepayers. I therefore reaffirm what I said about British Rail applications.

Rail Freight Services (Wales)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Rail concerning the organisation of freight services in Wales.

Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that on 30 October I received a letter from Sir Robert Reid, chairman of British Rail, saying that if the demanding financial objectives set out by the Secretary of State are to be met the Severn tunnel junction will have to close? Will the Minister intervene in this matter, because if rail freight in Wales is to have any future this wonderful facility should be kept, irrespective of the safety and environmental factors involved in the new proposals?

Mr. Mitchell: It has been the policy of Labour and Conservative Administrations that freight should pay its way. There is no relationship whatever between the freight rationalisation in south Wales and my right hon. Friend's recently announced objectives for British Rail. What British Rail is doing in south Wales is designed to enable it to compete successfully with road haulage in a competitive world and to secure a viable business. I assume that the hon. Gentleman wants BR to have a viable freight business in south Wales, so I hope that he will support the action of BR management.

Motorway Service Areas

Mr. John Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria his Department adopts for the provision of motorway service areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): The general policy is to provide service areas at intervals of about 30 miles.

Mr. Heddle: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Will he then explain to the House and to the many hundreds of thousands of those who use the M25 why that criterion was not adopted in the design of that orbital route?

Mr. Spicer: The proposal is that there should should be four or five MSAs on the M25. One must recognise, as the Government do, that the tendering, planning, and inquiry processes are very lengthy. We expect South Mimms to be fully operational in the spring of next year, and hope that Thurrock will be available in 1988. The other two — Clackett Lane and Iver— still subject to inquiry processes.

Mr. Cartwright: Given the sheer volume of traffic using the M25, why have we had to wait for the completion of the motorway before the Government have come forward with proposals for these essential facilities?

Mr. Spicer: That is a reasonable question. In many ways it would be better to begin the tendering process before the motorways are completed, but it is extremely difficult to get tenderers to come forward and get the process started before the motorways are completed.

Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend accept that perhaps different criteria should apply in the case of a road such as the M25 — a circular road—compared with a road that goes in a straight line such as the M1? Given the present level of traffic on the M25 in the rush hour, is there not some danger that if there were motorway service areas people who got off would never get back on again?

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend makes a good first point. I shall not comment on the second point, save to say that we have one MSA almost every 30 miles, but not quite.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he has been besieged by questions from Tory Members who have not taken on board the Prime Minister's words last week'? She said that she wanted no criticism of the M25. What is going off? Only a few days have passed and senior Tory Members are stabbing the Prime Minister in the back. Will the hon. Gentleman assist us?

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was making the perfectly sensible point, which I should have thought would be welcomed on all sides of the House,


that the M25 has been extremely successful in a number of objectives—particularly, for example, in reducing the number of lorries going into the centre of London. But it is always capable of improvement. That is why we have now said that we shall consider the question of four lanes.

Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the northern link of the M40 is built from Oxford to Birmingham, the provision of motorway service areas will be catered for during the building programme and not some years after it has been opened?

Mr. Spicer: I have already said that that is a good objective, but when the tendering process is involved it is difficult to get the tenderers interested until they are clear as to the timing of the opening of the motorway concerned.

Mr. Chapman: To help the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), if not my own ministerial prospects, may I say how much my constituents appreciate the completion of the M25? As the whole of the M25 goes through the established green belt of the metropolis, however, may I have my hon. Friend's assurance that not more than four service stations will he built along this length of motorway and that wherever possible and practicable already developed land or derelict land will be used?

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. I cannot give him any assurance as to the number of motorway service stations, although I have already indicated that only four or five are planned at the moment along the entirety of the route. Therefore, the indications are that the stretch to which my hon. Friend referred will not have so many such stations as he fears.

Airports (Safety)

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative safety performance of the United Kingdom's airports compared with that of other European countries.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory operational responsibility for safety at airports in the United Kingdom. I do not have comparative data about airports elsewhere in Europe.

Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that a couple of civilian aircraft have been playing leapfrog in the skies over one of our major airports, has he had talks or meetings with the chairman of the CAA to see what can be done to reassure the public about the safety of our airports and airlines?

Mr. Spicer: Yes, I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, who naturally shares my concern about this matter. He has asked me to inform the House that he would welcome meetings with interested Members of Parliament to discuss the details of air traffic control procedures. One risk-bearing air miss is one too many, but it is worth remembering that the air miss to which my hon. Friend referred is the first of its kind over London in the past 10 years, during which period there have been 2½ million movements at Heathrow alone, let alone Gatwick, Luton and Stansted.

Mr. Alfred Morris: When can we expect a further ministerial statement about the lessons that have been

learnt from all the inquiries into the traffic accident to the Boeing 737 at Manchester international airport on 22 August 1985?

Mr. Spicer: I am unable to make a definitive statement to the House. All the very detailed investigations that are currently being undertaken have yet to be finalised.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will know that one of the most important safety aspects at airports is security and the prevention of terrorist threats. Will he comment on how good British airports are in this respect as compared with European airports?

Mr. Spicer: Although it is not strictly a safety matter, security is equally of great importance, and the standard of security at British airports is the highest in the world. Many figures could be used to support that statement For instance, a bomb has never been placed on an aircraft that has left a British airport, nor has there even been a hijack.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as it has been alleged that an aircraft controller carrying out his duties was actually interrupted during the course of his work and that that may have been a contributory factor to the most recent incident, surely an emergency change in procedure is required. Does the Minister agree that it is not just a matter of the Civil Aviation Authority talking about coming to Parliament and discussing the matter with Members of Parliament, but that rapid action needs to be taken in case there is a similar incident in the future?

Mr. Spicer: The CAA is looking urgently at the proposition that there was some distraction, although it is not clear that distraction was the cause of the incident.

Mr. Dykes: Apart from examining the air miss over Stanmore to which my hon. Friend referred, which is very important, is he aware that we need to examine the rest periods and the hours of work of controllers, a point that has also been raised again? Will he discuss that question with the CAA?

Mr. Spicer: That, equally, will be looked into, but the current rest period at a busy control centre such as Heathrow is half an hour every two hours, so considerable rest periods are already built into the system.

Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that in principle it would be best to segregate private flights from scheduled flights, bearing in mind, for instance, the number of private aeroplanes using Birmingham airport, while Coventry airport just up the road is not used to anything like its full capacity?

Mr. Spicer: That proposition is well worth considering. In the London system, which is far and away the busiest system, there is already clear segregation. However, I shall look carefully into this question. In the United States the lack of segregation has been a major cause of accidents in the past. Perhaps, therefore, we should consider segregation for all airports.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is no reason, on safety grounds, why airlines should not be permitted to make transatlantic flights from Glasgow airport?

Mr. Spicer: I suspect that there are no safety grounds, although I should need to take the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority on that, but there are traffic distribution policy grounds for transatlantic flights being made at the moment only from Prestwick.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for his courtesy and obvious concern on telephoning me when I raised with him the case of a constituent who was involved in the incident on the Edinburgh shuttle. Is there any way in which knowledge of these dreadful things—my consituent was terrified—can be made available more quickly?

Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Spicer: I believe that a wide distribution of knowledge is a good thing. That is one reason why I very much welcome, as a start, what the chaiman of the CAA has said. He would welcome giving hon. Members as full a briefing on these matters as they are interested in receiving. After that, it will, to some extent, be a matter for their judgment how much knowledge is spread. As a matter of Government policy, I believe that we should make available as much information as we reasonably can, without starting scare campaigns.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I commend the air traffic controllers on their excellent work over the years, but is it not the case that the greater the traffic, the greater the risk and that the CAA report says that, in addition to one or two specific incidents, there has been anxiety about the deterioration in air traffic control standards? Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman study the report extremely carefully and present a report to the House to assure everyone that there is no shortage of staff or training and that money is available to increase the number of staff if that should be needed?

Mr. Spicer: It would be worth analysing that matter in greater detail, because we must not have views based on partial leaks. One misunderstanding has arisen out of a partial leak that referred to only a limited amount of data.
I have looked at the figures carefully and if hon. Members examine the numbers at risk in airmiss reports they will see that there has been a decline as traffic has risen from 1982 to 1985. An impression has been given by the limited figures that have been made available, but the converse of that impression is true. That is precisely why I think that we should have the full facts available.

British Rail (Staff Unions)

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met trade union representatives of British Rail's staff.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has not yet been approached by representatives of the rail unions for a meeting, although I have met them on a number of occasions.

Mr. Boyes: When the Minister next gets the opportunity to meet the British Rail trade unions, will he explain to them why the Government have found it necessary to make a further 25 per cent. cut in their grant to British Rail? Will he also explain how many more people will lose their jobs as a consequence, bearing in mind that tens of thousands of loyal, devoted and skilled railwaymen have already lost their jobs? It is all right sitting on the Government Benches making these decisions, but people are losing their jobs, and travellers, such as myself, who use British Rail week in and week out, are finding that the level of service is dropping, not because of the people

who work on the lines, but because of the decisions of British Rail and because Ministers are cutting the system and starving it of cash.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman asked about my next meeting with the unions. The former Secretary of State met the unions in December 1983. The NUR was to have met us in July 1985, but cancelled the meeting, saying that it would be in touch to arrange another date. It has not yet done so.
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question referred to the cut in the public service obligation. Of course, all taxpayers will be pleased with that cut, provided they can get adequate quality standards from British Rail in the delivery of its services. The chairman has accepted the revised targets that have been produced and has assured us that he is able to provide the quality of standard that he has been invited to provide. I ask the hon. Gentleman to stop running down British Rail and to recognise that the staff are doing a damned good job and that in many cases quality standards are rising.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend accept that he should not wait for the trade unions to approach him, but that he should be asking to meet the trade unions and asking why there are such high rates of absenteeism, particularly among transport catering staff? Passengers have to go for hours on end without food or drink on British Rail trains.

Mr. Mitchell: That is a management matter for British Rail and not one in which Ministers should get involved with staff unions. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problem of vacancies. As unemployment among railwaymen has been mentioned, I should say that there are still unfilled vacancies and British Rail would be glad to have people come forward to fill them.

Mr. Anderson: Before the Minister rushes to criticise absenteeism or other matters, will he take the trouble to look at the scandalously low pay of many people who work on British Rail? He will find that even people who often work unsocial hours have take-home pay of only £70 or £80 a week. Even if the Minister and his colleagues wish to criticise absenteeism or the inability to fill vacancies, will he realise that the 25 per cent. cut will be made at the expense, to some extent, of railwaymen and their standard of living?

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail has managed with a 25 per cent. reduction in its PSO for the past three years and this has not resulted in any reduction in railwaymen's wages. Moreover, the level of their wages in real terms is slightly better than it was when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Steen: When the Minister meets the unions, will he ask them to have a word with British Rail management to ascertain why English mineral waters are refused on British Rail, with the consequence that the French have a monopoly on all British Rail rolling stock? Why do the French have such a monopoly, and why are English mineral waters refused on the same wagons?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting but somewhat detailed point about the management of the catering side of British Rail, which I shall draw to the chairman's attention.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not the contention of the unions and of others that any reduction in the real value of rail


subsidies must be met either by reducing the quality of services or increasing fares over the general rise in inflation? Is the Minister suggesting that the reduction can be wholly met from increased efficiency?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Snape: When the Minister next meets the appropriate trade unions, will he discuss with them the impact on fares and services of the Government's latest reduction in financial support for British Rail? Will he accept from me that on Friday afternoon, to take one example, my train to Birmingham was 40 minutes late for a 95-minute journey? Will he also accept that it is no consolation to regular rail travellers to gaze across fields at the permanent traffic jams on the M1?

Mr. Mitchell: I travelled on the first electric train from Huntingdon this morning and it was dead on time on arrival. Moreover, Network SouthEast has set itself a target of 90 per cent. of trains arriving within five minutes of scheduled time and is now beating that target. As for the improvements in efficiency which are required, 8 per cent. in three years is not beyond the wit of most major organisations.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the public expressing concern about any delays in the Channel tunnel construction project.

Mr. Moore: The Channel tunnel project is still on target for construction to start next summer as planned, subject, of course, to parliamentary approval, and very few members of the public have expressed concern about possible delays.

Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer? In view of the scurrilous disinformation and hostile propaganda against this excellent project last week, will he go further and confirm that there is, as he said, no delay, that the finance is fully secured and that this is an attractive project for investments? Will he confirm also that there is no question of the French having unfair domination, that we are indulging in 50–50 co-operation with our great continental neighbour 20 miles away on a fully friendly basis and that this excellent project will produce thousands of jobs?

Mr. Moore: I do not think that I can pick up all the points in my hon. Friends supplementary question, but essentially, the success of Eurotunnel in raising funds in the City was a remarkable achievement when we consider that the Bill has not yet completed its passage through Parliament, that the treaty has not been ratified, that the concession agreement is not yet in effect and that competitors have been running a fierce campaign to dissuade investment. That campaign suggests that those behind it share the Government's hopes for this exciting project.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the money for the Channel tunnel was secured only at the very last minute by the intervention of the Governor of the Bank of England who started the arm-twisting process by saying to financial institutions, "Will you put up some money, albeit we might not need it for a long time?" Against that background, will the right hon. Gentleman give a

categorical assurance, once again, that the Government will not use any taxpayer's money to finance this project at any time?

Mr. Moore: Questions for the Bank of England are a matter for its Governor. I confirm that the Government have no intent, desire, or see any necessity, to provide governmental money for the Channel tunnel project. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his own party, which understands the excitement of the potential developments for British Rail to which hon. Members referred a few moments ago. The project has potential also for the north and all other parts of our great kingdom that might benefit from it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has received no representations from anyone in Southend expressing concern about delays in this project? Is he willing to issue a clear warning to average British investors that if they put their money into the project later this year, they will lose it all if the project is not completed because of funds running out?

Mr. Moore: I would not seek to intervene in any way in the normal market process or seek to give advice to investors as to what they should or should not do with their money. I rely of course— as you would expect. Mr. Speaker—upon my hon. Friend for advice about the views of people in the Southend area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Westland plc

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the conclusions of the fourth report from the Defence Committee on "Westland plc: the Government's Decision-making," in so far as they relate to his responsibilities.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I have received three letters from hon. Members in which they asked questions as to the role I played in the inquiry into the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it, or is it not, true, as reported by Mr. John Lewis in the Sunday Telegraph on 27 July, that the Attorney-General did any such thing as threaten Sir Robert Armstrong that he would bring in either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police if there was not an agreement from the Cabinet to have an inquiry into the circumstances in which the Solicitor-General's letter was leaked?

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to what has already been said in answer to questions and in statements.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not amazing that the Attorney-General has to threaten the Cabinet Secretary that the police will be called in to No. 10 unless an inquiry is held into public matters? Does the Attorney-General realise that the very fact that he refuses directly to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which I am putting to him again, must confirm that the newspaper reports are accurate?

The Attorney-General: My answer in no way confirms the report.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I cannot help but say that I am not sure that the Attorney-General is being as candid with


the House as he might be. Am I right in assuming that the reason why no civil servant is to be prosecuted for leaking the Solicitor-General's letter is that the Attorney-General believes that ultimate blame lies elsewhere? Is he aware that his failure to prosecute civil servants effectively pins the blame on the only possible remaining culprit—the Prime Minister?

The Attorney-General: If I may say so, that is the non sequitor of the day. The only civil servant whom I was concerned with was the information officer. For the reasons that I have explained to the House, it is quite clear that no jury would ever convict her.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Attorney-General's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Derry Mainwaring Knight

Mr. Greenway: asked the Attorney-General if he will now state what sum was paid in legal aid to Mr. Derry Mainwaring Knight during the so-called Satan trial; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Nothing was paid to Mr. Knight. Payments made under the legal aid scheme in respect of fees, as assessed by officers of the Crown court, are paid direct to individual fee earners. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish these.

Mr. Greenway: As Mr. Mainwaring Knight was convicted of conning hundreds of thousands of pounds out of people, was he required to repay the legal aid paid on his behalf for his defence? If not, should he not have been, in view of the great demand upon legal aid funds?

The Solicitor-General: The sentence imposed upon Mr. Knight, in addition to seven years' imprisonment, included a fine of £50,000 with two years' imprisonment consecutive in default of payment.

Mr. Ashby: What real efforts are made to investigate the means of people such as Mr. Knight to ascertain what money they really have and so recover legal aid fees?

The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, there is an investigation into means. The decision whether to grant criminal legal aid has to be made promptly. It is not always possible, of course, to carry out as full an investigation as might be desirable in ideal circumstances. The matter is examined as thoroughly as possible.

"The Sun" (Cartoon)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement on his decision not to prosecute The Sun newspaper regarding a cartoon it published.

The Attorney-General: My decision was taken on the basis of all the relevant circumstances, which included as one — I stress one — of the factors, a mistake in my Department which arose from a misunderstanding between myself and an official and led to the complainants being wrongly informed that I had decided to prosecute. The true position was that I simply wished police inquiries to be made. The House will realise, of course, that I naturally regret this.

Mr. Hughes: What new information or representations had the Attorney-General received between 30 July and 21 August? What was their nature, and what was in them that made the Attorney-General change his mind?

The Attorney-General: Various representations were made from the Arab Society, but I do not know whether they were within those dates. Various people concerned with the matter, including The Sun, were wrongly told that there would be a prosecution. When they were interviewed by the police, on advice, they took a course different from the one they would have taken if they had known the true facts.

Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever the sensitivies of Arab terrorists or pickets outside Wapping, the pig is a much maligned creature?

The Attorney-General: I have always been rather fond of pigs.

Legal Aid

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the recent Treasury review of legal aid.

The Solicitor-General: The review team comprised officials from the efficiency unit, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury. The period of consultation on the recommendations ended on 30 September. The Government are now analysing the responses and an announcement of our decisions will be made as soon as possible. At present this seems likely to be about the turn of the year.

Mr. Brown: This is a good starting point for a debate on legal aid. Will it be possible for Parliament to debate the report in Government time? Inasmuch as the report highlights the large sums of money now being spent through the legal aid scheme, could the Solicitor-General tell us whether there ought to be a Government Minister directly accountable to the House of Commons for that expenditure?

The Solicitor-General: The allocation of Government time is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about direct ministerial accountability. I am not sure that direct accountability would necessarily reduce expenditure from the public purse, but I note the point and will refer it to those concerned.

Mr. Heddle: Without anticipating what the report might say, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are circumstances in which constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members have problems, particularly the low-paid, those on small incomes and, sometimes, those on retirement pensions, when they wish to appeal against rating assessments, and in order to put forward sensible appeals require professional advice? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that legal aid in certain deserving cases might be worth while?

The Solicitor-General: It is easy to think of types of dispute in which our constituents would like legal aid but do not have it at the moment. The present Lord Chancellor has enlarged the area of legal aid. I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that further enlargements are an immediate prospect.

BBC (Libel Case)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General if has yet made a decision regarding possible proceedings for contempt of court in relation to the publication by some of the media of premature reports concerning an out-of-court settlement in the British Broadcasting Corporation libel case; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: Since the conclusion of the proceedings, I have received a letter from the trial judge setting out the aspects of the media coverage which caused him concern. Officials have procured copies of the relevant material, which I have considered with the benefit of advice from Treasury counsel. It is clear that certain factual inquiries need to be made before a final decision is taken as to the institution of proceedings for contempt. Those inquiries are now in hand.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Attorney-General agree that there are many disturbing features about this case and that there is a widespread sense of disquiet, both about the media coverage and about many other aspects of it? Will the Attorney-General examine the circumstances of this case rather more widely? If he does not do so, many people will feel that justice was certainly not done.

The Attorney-General: I am concerned principally with the media coverage, because that is under my responsibility. 1 must tell the hon. Member that before I received the letter from the judge I had already asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to start an inquiry.

Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. and learned Friend heard of the new phrase, to "Panorama" somebody? Is it not the case that there was no intimidation of witnesses, but that the BBC had an absolutely hopeless case—that is what the matter is about—and it has been trying to "Panorama" its own settlement?

The Attorney-General: If there really is any evidence of intimidation of witnesses, I just wish that it could be made available. [Interruption.] As I said in an answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who keeps interrupting me, the only document that he has provided to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is Mr. Pedley's wretched letter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Attorney-General not recognise that Mr. Christopher Hayward, the Dorset county councillor, was nobbled by an official at Conservative Central Office? Does he not understand that there is a tape in existence which will prove that, that it will surface inevitably, and that when it does we shall look to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ensure that there are prosecutions?

The Attorney-General: What the hon. Gentleman is doing yet again is using the privilege of the House to make allegations in respect of which he has no evidence of any kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Overseas Aid

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the figures for United

Kingdom expenditure on overseas aid are compiled on the same basis and using the same criteria as the figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I am satisfied that the figures for Britain's overseas aid reported to the OECD conform to OECD definitions. The relationship between these figures and those for public expenditure on aid is explained in the introduction to the Overseas Development Administration's publication "British Aid Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister recall that in the open letter that was addressed to him by his predecessor, the former Minister said that meetings between himself and the Prime Minister on those matters were few and far between? Will he therefore draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the need not to muddy the waters with regard to the figures by private flows, promissory notes, and so on? Will he distinguish his term of office by aiming unreservedly for the United Nations' target of 0·7 per cent?

Mr. Patten: On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, I could not add reasonably to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to him in correspondence that was published on 30 June. I hope that 1 can help to deliver a quality and effective aid programme over the next few years.

Mr. Forman: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities at the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that, whatever may be the finer points of the statistical arguments about assistance to developing countries, the important thing is to increase the beneficial flows, and in that respect the private flows are every bit as valuable, when carefully directed, as public flows?

Mr. Patten: I totally accept what my hon. Friend has said. The position of the Labour party on that issue is somewhat schizophrenic.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that on whatever basis those figures are compiled they show a disturbing fall year on year from 1979? I refer to that valedictory letter in the Daily Telegraph from his predecessor. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor said that the only time that the Prime Minister bothered to speak to him about aid was when she dismissed him? Does the hon. Gentleman expect to meet the Prime Minister more frequently?

Mr. Patten: It would make every day if I saw the Prime Minister regularly. Since 1982–83 our aid programme has been increasing in real terms, and I hope that we can secure the real terms increase in the aid budget.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister will be aware that, according to the OECD, the Development Assistance Committee aid review committee on 18 September was given
a detailed account of the project appraisal criteria and procedures followed by the United Kingdom.
We understand that that reflected a British initiative. Will the Minister follow that through by making available a copy of that detailed account on project appraisal in the Library of the House?

Mr. Patten: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure he will also have recognised that the OECD


Development Assistance Committee in September welcomed the high concessionality of our aid programme. It also welcomed the relatively large concentration of aid from this country to the poorest countries, which was better than the average elsewhere.

Gibrepair Ltd.

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the new managing director of Gibrepair Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have not met the new managing director of Gibrepair Ltd.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the conditions for financial assistance by the Government to Gibrepair Ltd. to assist with the privatisation of the former royal naval dockyard was that a system of proper industrial relations practices, a sort of code of conduct, should be agreed between management and worker? Those of us who visited the dockyard during the summer were disappointed to find that there had been little progress on that front and that that was not the fault of the shop floor. Will my hon. Friend ensure that no further payments are made to Gibrepair Ltd., until the management and unions agree on a proper system of working practices, bearing in mind the extremely competitive market in which Gibrepair is operating?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that that is a matter which should and does concern the Government of Gibraltar as the owners of Gibrepair. My hon. Friend will know that in 1983 we agreed to provide up to £28 million towards the establishment and initial working capital of Gibrepair Ltd., and £26·6 million of that has been spent. We agreed in 1986 to allocate a further £2·4 million as a final contribution to the capital costs of the project. Final in those circumstances means final.

India

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of aid is proposed to India for the next 12 months.

Mr. Chris Patten: In the current financial year we plan to spend about £108 million on bilateral aid to India and approximately £6 million from the aid and trade provision. We have also told the Government of India that India could expect soft loans or mixed credit for British exports to a value of up to about £300 million over the next five years provided the two Governments identify and agree the desired projects. This would be additional to our normal programme of grant-aid.

Mr. Janner: I welcome the increase in aid to India. However, does the Minister agree that the level of poverty and deprivation in that country are staggering and that we should do everything in our power to help? Can the House have the Minister's assurance that the present unhappy differences on matters of policy between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government will not be allowed to interfere in any way with the aid programme?

Mr. Patten: We would like to see ever warmer relations with the Indian Government. India is the largest recipient of our aid on a bilateral basis, because the largest number of people in absolute poverty live there.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Now that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi has denounced Her Majesty's Government as racist for requiring visas, as India does, how can the Indian Government bear to accept aid from us?

Mr. Patten: That is a question that might be directed to Mr. Gandhi. We have made our views on visas well known to him.

Deforestation

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department takes as part of its aid programme to discourage deforestation.

Mr. Chris Patten: The Government fully support conservation of forest resources and their use on a sustainable and renewable basis. They are giving priority to forestry projects within the aid programme, and, with other donors, support the Food and Agriculture Organisation's tropical forestry action plan. I am delighted to add that the Korup rain forest in Cameroon has just been designated a national park. Our project with non-governmental organisations to help conserve this forest will go ahead with the Cameroon authorities.

Mr. Beith: I welcome that answer. However, are all aid-supported projects, including those under the aid and trade provision, evaluated if they are in afforested areas in order to assess whether they will do damage to existing forests? If not, will the Minister ensure that such steps are taken?

Mr. Patten: I am endeavouring to ensure that we give environmental aspects of development aid ever greater priority. I take note of the extremely important point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the pleasure which it gives me, as someone who has trekked in that forest in the Cameroons, to know that the aid is going to an area which was once ruled by this country, the Anglophone part of the Cameroons? What other African countries are making similar proposals to this Government?

Mr. Patten: We have made progress in other countries with forestry projects, for example in Ghana. We are now spending £5·8 million on forestry projects, which is about an 80 per cent. increase over the past five years, so I hope that many other countries will benefit from that in the future.

Mr. Barnett: The Minister will be aware that this is a major problem, especially in tropical areas. I wonder whether he can tell the House what kind of expenditure goes on afforestation within his tropical scientific unit and how many qualified foresters are working under the technical co-operation programme? The Minister will know as well as I that there are many first-class university departments and research institutes in forestry in this country and that we have a major contribution to make.

Mr. Patten: As I said in reply to the last question, we are spending about £5·8 million on forestry projects and about £500,000 on research. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the number of foresters.

Turks and Caicos Islands

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the level and use of United Kingdom budgetary aid to the administration of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Mr. Chris Patten: A total of £1,460,000 has been approved for the current year. Budgetary aid is provided to cover an overall deficit on the recurrent account. Its purpose is to enable the Government to maintain a minimum reasonable level of public services until means can be found of generating additional sources of revenue.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister remember the substantial capital investment in a controversial airport on the Turks and Caicos Islands associated with an equally controversial Club Mediterranée project, on the advice of the Foreign Office, to eliminate that very deficit? When will the deficit be eliminated? Is the Department responsible, not for development, but for the general grants in aid?

Mr. Patten: I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the impact of tourism, which I think is the main point behind his question. In our judgment, Club Med has had a beneficial effect on the Government's income through increased tourism. The number of visitors has increased substantially. That should help to deal with the budgetary question.

Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that Transport questions 4, 6, 17, 18, 26, 28, 33, 43, 44 and 46 deal with the effects of deregulation under the Transport Act 1985. Significantly, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who asked question 43, every other hon. Member who tabled questions on the same subject was absent. They include five members of the Labour Opposition, one Liberal and one member of the SDP. That means that others interested in the topic were denied the opportunity of asking supplementary questions.
Does this mean that those members of the Opposition who did not bother to turn up are satisfied with my right hon. Friend's wonderful policies and that they illustrated their satisfaction by their absence? Will you, Mr. Speaker, permit me now to ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I will not. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was rising earlier, otherwise he might have had his chance. There were a number of absentees today. If hon. Members cannot be present for questions they need only let my Office know and their questions will not be called.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you became Speaker of this House you undertook to protect Back Benchers' rights. I believe that you have done so to a greater extent than any other Speaker since I have been here. In the context of the protection of Back Benchers, is there not a right to get answers from Ministers, not necessarily on judgment or policy, but on fact and personal behaviour? For example, I asked the Attorney-General whether he did or did not threaten Sir Robert Armstrong with the DPP and the constabulary? Are we not entitled to a straight answer—yes or no—either "I did threaten him" or "I did not threaten him",

rather than a complete evasion? On matters of personal behaviour by Ministers, however senior, are we not entitled to a yes-no answer to a yes-no factual question?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his point of order. All that I can do is to give Back Benchers an opportunity to ask questions. I am not responsible for the answers.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have just said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not get a response from the Attorney-General, will you look into whether it is possible for the Attorney-General to answer questions more frequently? The matter could go before the appropriate Committee. When the Attorney-General came into the Chamber today, he looked ill, and I thought that he did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow because he did not quite feel up to it, but when the Attorney-General answered other questions, he did so very fully. He spent two or three minutes answering questions on other issues—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that matter. I cannot be responsible for the answers that are given. The hon. Gentleman is sitting opposite the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, so perhaps he should put his question to him.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know you accept that the interests of Back Benchers should be protected, but we are in some difficulty, as the Government have assured us that we cannot ask people such as the Cabinet Secretary what happened because, as officials, they are not supposed to answer such questions, and, ultimately, responsibility to inform the House lies with Ministers. But when hon. Members table questions—I am not even talking about unexpected supplementary questions — the legitimate response can only be yes or no. When we ask a serious question, such as whether the law was threatened against the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office, we cannot obtain an answer. At some stage we shall have to ask you to give us some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how, in the light of what has been said about Westland, the rights of Back Benchers can be protected against ministerial abuses arid the refusal of Ministers to answer our questions.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and Back Benchers would not expect me to take responsibility for deciding whether answers to questions are correct. I have no idea whether they are, and that has never been part of the Chair's function.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will agree that Back Benchers should be able to question Ministers. Earlier today I went to the Table Office to ask when I could table a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I was notified. I found out that the right hon. Gentleman answers questions very infrequently, and that when he does so it is for five minutes only. The right hon. Gentleman has been making the most outlandish attacks on the BBC. Your would argue, Mr. Speaker, as I would, that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wishes to do that, so be it, but as the right hon. Gentleman has been taking a much higher profile than any of his predecessors, will there be some opportunity, when the new Session begins, to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions more frequently? When he


comes to the Dispatch Box, can it be for more than five minutes at a time? The present situation is entirely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: I should refine the advice that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is not a matter for the Procedure Committee, but, normally for the usual channels to decide on the frequency of questions and the length of time in which they are answered.

Orders of the Day — Housing and Planning Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 4 amends the Tenants Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. Part I of the Bill relates to the right to buy while the rest of the Bill deals exclusively with provisions affecting England and Wales. Tomorrow we shall be debating Lords amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Government have now introduced an important clause that gives Ministers powers to vary upwards only the discounts available in respect of the right to buy, and have thus introduced into a basically English Bill a clause affecting Scotland.
I appreciate that, as things stand, you, Mr. Speaker, do not have the power to tell Ministers not to do that. However, the way in which the Government have misused English legislation to introduce legislation for Scotland is now so great that I would ask you, at the first instance, to see the Leader of the House and representatives from the Opposition to find out whether it is possible to devise strict rules about what is Scottish legislation and what is English legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has more or less answered his own point of order. It is not a matter for me. It would have been open to the hon. Gentleman to put down an amendment to Lords amendment No. 4. The hon. Gentleman has not done so, but if he catches the eye of the Chair he will have an opportunity to make that point during the course of the debate.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, who is responsible for such matters, is on the Front Bench and will be able to respond to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) should he be fortunate enough to catch your eye during the debate on that amendment.

New Clause

EXCEPTION TO THE RIGHT TO BUY WITH RESPECT TO DWELLING HOUSES FOR PERSONS OF PENSIONABLE AGE

Lords amendment: No. 1, before clause 1 insert the following new clause—
.—In Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy: certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age), there shall be substituted for paragraph 11—
11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, having regard—

(i) to its location, and
(ii) to its size, design, heating system and other major features so far as those have been provided by the landlord, a predecessor of the tenant or a person qualified to succeed the tenant by virtue of Part IV of the Housing Act 1985,


(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

(2) In determining whether a dwelling is particularly suitable, regard shall be had as to whether the dwelling—

(a) is easily accessible on foot;
(b) is on one level;
(c) being a flat located above ground floor access by lift is available;
(d) has no more than two bedrooms;
(e) has a heating system serving the living room and at least one bedroom."."

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a), in lieu of the Lords amendment, and Lords amendments Nos. 57 and 191.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I was expecting the Minister to say why the Government are asking the House to accept amendment (a) rather than Lords amendment No. 1. There is a difference between the two and I was hoping that the Minister would explain briefly why the Government feel bound to make a minor change in wording but a fundamental change in substance to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Patten: Alas, it is not possible to give a short response. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) wants a response, it will have to be long and detailed because this is a complex issue.
This is an important group of amendments. They affect the rules for excluding non-sheltered housing for the elderly from the right to buy. We discussed that issue at length in 1980 and 1984, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is a point upon which many local authorities and individuals have strong views and, indeed, their Lordships in another place clearly had strong views on that as well.
This is not the first time that we have had a dispute with another place over the right to buy for elderly people. For all the arguments that we hear on this point, and very persuasive many of them are, some parts of the amendments that were carried in another place smack of discrimination on grounds of age. I never expected to have to accuse their Lordships, of all people, of agism, at least in part, if not in whole.
Under the present rules introduced in 1984, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was responsible when he was the distinguished occupant of the seat of the Minister with responsibility for housing, it is open to landlords to apply to the Secretary of State to have a house or flat exempted from the right to buy if they consider that it is particularly suitable for the elderly and that it was let for occupation either by a pensioner or by a physically disabled person. There have been few difficulties over the letting test, but there have been many more difficulties with the way in which the test of "particular suitability" has been applied.
Against that background, the Lords amendment would make two main changes. First, it would simplify the test of "particular suitability" which has to be satisfied before a house can be exempted from the right to buy. Secondly, it would take away the Secretary of State's jurisdiction in the matter, an important issue, and leave decisions on exemption to the landlords themselves.
Taking the latter point first in answer to the implicit questions posed by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, the Government cannot accept that decisions on exemption from the right to buy should be left to individual landlords.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister just said that the Lords amendment will take responsibility away from the Minister and give it to local authorities. Surely the Lords amendment takes it away from the Minister and gives it to the county courts, which is the case in most other disputes under the right to buy.

Mr. Patten: In the first instance, the Lords amendment gives the responsibility to the local authority. I shall reply in detail to the hon. Gentleman's point.
The suggestion in another place was that that would have the advantage of giving the courts, not the Government as the hon. Gentleman said, the final decision on questions of exemption. That is a puzzling assertion by some of their Lordships and now by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), because decisions taken by the Secretary of State under the present arrangements are in the same way subject to the final jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore, it would be a substitution of the first in line, the local authorities, for the courts, rather than the courts for the Secretary of State. There is no real difference in that respect between what happens now and what the Opposition appear to propose.
3.45 pm
The practical difference is that under the arrangements proposed in the Lords amendment decisions would be taken by one of the parties interested in the outcome. This answers a point alluded to by the hon. Member for Bootle. The council is an interested party in the outcome, just as a prospective purchaser is. It is extremely good to have someone who is disinterested, such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, taking this important decision.
A reason why we have had problems with this issue since 1980 has been the difficulty of drawing a clear, objective distinction between non-sheltered housing particularly suitable for the elderly and the general run of ground floor accommodation. Even if all authorities could be expected to apply the test impartially — I do not know whether that would be the case — they would apply it differently and the result could be that tenants in one local authority area might find themselves excluded from the right to buy, whereas tenants in a similar property in a different area might find themselves included in the right to buy. That would make nonsense of the law which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and his predecessor helped to carry through the House. This is the main point of disagreement. In the Government's view, decisions must rest with the Secretary of State.
The other aspect of the Lords amendment is the simplification of the test of suitability. My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale has made it clear that we are prepared to respond to responsible and constructive criticism on this point. I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr and other hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that we tried to be as responsive as we could to points put in a constructive spirit. Having reflected on some of the problems of the past two years, we agree that some simplification of the test is necessary and we are

prepared to see it. The Government amendment accepts the substance of the Lords amendment on this point. In future the suitability of a dwelling for the elderly will be assessed aganst the list of five features set out in subsection (5) of amendment (a).
There are two main respects in which we have made changes to the Opposition's proposal and now I shall answer specifically the question asked by the hon. Member for Bootle. First, we have included a reference to proximity to shops and public transport facilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is an improvement on the Lords amendment. Hon. Members will agree that that must be considered in assessing a dwelling's suitability for the elderly, although in practice the standard will have different effects in different locations.
Secondly, I propose that there should be power to vary the list of features or to add to it by order. I hope that we have got the list right this time, but we may not have done so. I hope that we shall have the power to vary the list by order in future. However, I give the House an undertaking that there will be consultations with the local authority associations and other interested bodies before any order is made under this provision.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We are talking about the right to buy of certain people. I brought to the attention of my hon. Friend and his predecessor the problems of people on the Bournville housing estate. On that estate, the land has been partly financed by charity, but all the building has been financed by state and local government funds. A problem arises in that one set of people can buy property and another set of people living as far away as the area of this House cannot even though 95 per cent. of the money has come from local authorities. I have not been able to have this injustice put right. If people are not allowed to buy a house, why cannot they at least have the discount? There is a terrible injustice when one person can buy and another cannot. The other day the other place stopped the Government when they tried to help. Is that justice?
Cannot something be done to help people who feel a real sense of injustice? We all want to be able to encourage people to buy their homes.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. I know how long and hard he has campaigned for his constituents about this matter. He has made his views known to me by letter and at a meeting. We tried to make it possible for his constituents to have the right to buy, like everyone else, but, alas, we were defeated in another place. That defeat was a mistake and we shall have to return to the issue on a future occasion.
I have two final points to make about the Government amendment. It is drafted in such a way as to provide that, where the letting test is met and the Secretary of State is satisfied that all the features are present, he will have to grant an exemption. We accept the Opposition's point that not all tenants' improvements should be disregarded in deciding whether to exempt a property from the right to buy. But the Lords amendment went too far. It would have limited the disregard to features that had been provided by the present tenant. That goes too far in other directions. It could, for instance, mean that where a widow had succeeded to a tenancy on the death of her husband, she could be denied the right to buy because her late husband


paid for the installation of central heating. That would be unfair. The Government amendment requires the Secretary of State to ignore not only features provided by the present tenant, but also those provided by a predecessor in title of that tenant.
I hope that Opposition Members will see this as a reasonable and constructive response to their amendment. In the technicalities, amendments Nos. 57 and 191 were consequential amendments to the main Lords amendment, but they are also necessary as being consequential to the Government amendment.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister. We should not pass this on the nod because the Lords will have to take account of what is said in this debate, given that they previously overturned the Government proposal. I share the distress of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). People locked into the situation that he described on the Bournville trust estate should at least have the right to the portable discount even if they do not have the right to buy because of the charitable housing status. Under present arrangements, those people cannot even get the portable discount. That anomaly should he put right, as it would be if positions in the House were reversed.
I come to this issue relatively new because the earlier debates between the other place and this House took place in 1980 and 1984. The Minister must be aware that this time the Lords have put the amendment into the Bill only because the Government previously operated in bad faith. That is why the Lords are so angry. Both they and Members of this House know that the right to buy has been applied to properties that meet all the criteria for houses for the elderly — houses on one level with no more than two bedrooms, with electrical facilities, wide doorways, and so on. That has been allowed by the Secretary of State. 'That is what has made the Lords so angry and upset the Association of District Councils and local authorities.
Nobody has put this to me on a crude party political or ideological basis. The Government have simply not operated their own criteria, or at least the Secretary of State has not. In 1984, the criteria were changed and the circular was issued. I pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), in this respect. Exemptions had been allowed, properties had been sold and post-war bungalows designed specifically for the elderly were allowed to be sold for reasons not always given by Ministers.
The Institute of Housing, in the survey organised by Harrogate, gave example after example of properties which met all of the criteria in the circular, in respect of which the Secretary of State was satisfied that the criteria had been met, but for which he still refused exemption. Such examples greatly distress local authorities because of the acute shortage of properties for the elderly. Everybody knows that one of the reasons for introducing the right to buy was to get money. As the Prime Minister put it on 5 November 1974:
To offer them for sale would still bring a substantial profit to local authorities which they could use to build special units for old people, for which there is a serious need."—[Official Report, 5 November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 897.]
There is still a serious shortage, not to mention an increased number of elderly people because of the structure of the population.
Can the Minister say that the Government will operate amendment (a) in good faith and to the letter and that Ministers will grant no more exemptions when the criteria are met? It is important for the Lords to have this put on record and it is central to whether we divide the House on this. The Government have previously been charged with acting dishonourably because they have allowed exemptions when properties meet all of the criteria. If the Government say that they will act honourably — that they will operate amendment (a) to the letter and that there will be no fiddling when a property meets the criteria—I could not in all conscience ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House. In such circumstances, I would merely say to the other place, "Three times we have had this debate and twice the Government have misled both Houses." It is to the credit of the other place that it has proposed an amendment which forces the Government to put in statute what is in the circular, although there is a change regarding transport. That is an important step forward. The other place would not trust the Government if decisions were made by the Secretary of State rather than by the county court because the Government's track record shows that they cannot be trusted. I cast no aspersions on Ministers, but I ask the Minister to be more specific as this is an important point.
I do not know how local authorities feel about my next question. I tried to put it to one this afternoon, but it could not provide an answer. I see nothing wrong in incorporating into the lease of properties particularly suitable for the elderly, which could be sold, a restriction requiring that they be occupied only by the elderly. That happens in the private sector under leasehold for the elderly schemes, but it does not apply in the public sector, even if properties are especially suitable for the elderly. The restrictions in the private sector are perfectly legitimate and are accepted by those who purchase leasehold, so why cannot the same apply in the public sector? When public sector properties regarded as especially suitable for the elderly come out of the public sector and are occupied by people who are neither elderly nor disabled, people feel that that is not right and that the system is not being operated correctly. I see no problem about imposing restrictions, but I am told that at present local authorities cannot operate in that way because the Secretary of State would say that it was unfair. I offer that point as something for the Minister to consider in the future. In my view, such restrictions would be quite fair, open and above board. The system operates in the private sector and could usefully be applied to the public sector.
The Minister must explain more clearly how he intends to operate Government amendment (a) before my colleagues and I decide whether to divide the House.

4 pm

Mr. Ian Gow: I support the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment and I am in favour of the Government amendment. I do not think that it is possible to leave to district and borough councils—in effect, that is what the Lords amendment would mean— the decision as to whether a house or flat ought to be exempt from the right-to-buy provisions on the ground that such a property is particularly suitable for a person of pensionable age. If that decision were left to local authorities, I believe that some of them—alas—are so opposed to the right to buy in any event that capricious decisions would be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sheffield."]


My hon. Friends are quite right. That is an excellent example of capricious local authorities responsible for housing. If the Lords amendment were allowed to stand, I believe that there would also be greatly increased delay in making decisions about elderly people who wanted to exercise the right to buy conferred upon them by this House. There would also be increased litigation, which would mean further protraction of the proceedings. We are therefore right to go back in substance to the provisions of paragraph 11 of schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that the Government had not acted in good faith in making a designation about houses that are particularly suitable for occupation by pensioners. He also said that, although he was accusing the Government of bad faith, he was not extending that charge to Ministers. From my knowledge of this matter, I can say that all applications made by local authorities for exemption from the right to buy were dealt with by Ministers — [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the accusation made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He cannot accuse the Government of bad faith without accusing Ministers of bad faith. In that sense I plead guilty to the charge levelled by the hon. Gentleman, because it is not possible to accuse the Government of bad faith without also accusing Ministers.
Every application made by a local authority for exemption from the right to buy on the ground that the house or flat was particularly suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age was carefully scrutinised by Ministers at the Department of the Environment. Every decision made by Ministers was made purely on the basis of the facts as presented, and in every case the decision was made in good faith. The hon. Member for Perry Barr is wrong to accuse the Government of bad faith without extending that charge to Ministers, and I reject the charge that Ministers have ever acted in bad faith in making such a decision. It is right to leave to the judgment of Minsters which houses should be exempt from the right to buy and it is right to specify, as the Government amendment does, with even greater clarity than is contained in schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985, the criteria that the Minister shall take into account.
We must also get the balance right before denying to people, simply because they are of pensionable age, the right that Parliament has conferred upon others. We are talking about people who are entering the early evening of their lives, about depriving people aged 65 of the right to buy their homes when they might already be regarded as suffering some small disadvantage by being that age, which may some day come to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about imposing on such people the added disadvantage of being denied a right that has been conferred upon others who are younger. We must ensure that we do not penalise people in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred to tenants of Bournville houses. I think that we and the hon. Member for Perry Barr are at one on this. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the possibility of extending to such tenants, through the portable discount scheme, the right to buy conferred upon similar tenants.
I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will decide not to divide the House, because I believe that the Government amendment fully meets the situation.

Mr. John Cartwright: I am very much in the same position as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The Government amendment is a useful step in the right direction, but I do not think that it goes as far as it might to meet a real problem.
I come to this issue comparatively fresh. What impresses me most about the Lords amendment is the breadth of support behind it. It was supported by the Association of District Councils, which is Conservative controlled, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which is Labour controlled, the Institute of Housing, the National Housing and Town Planning Council, Age Concern and Shelter. That is a pretty powerful group of organisations facing any Minister who is seeking to find consensus on this issue.
The broad measure of support behind what was done in the other place underlines what has already been articulated by Opposition Members about concern in respect of the practical way in which exemptions were being handled. I make no accusations of bad faith. I simply comment that many matters of very small detail seem to have been introduced when considering an individual case.
The Institute of Housing has provided us with one example — a letter from the Department of the Environment to the housing officer in Birmingham. It asks all sorts of questions about the property, such as the size of the bath, where the grab rail is in relation to the bath, the height of the bath, and whether the bottom of the bath is flat or non-slip. There are all sorts of questions about how the door of the bathroom can or cannot be locked. That introduces a whole range of detailed considerations that were never intended to be the sort of issues on which a judgment should be made in this admittedly difficult area.
That may be one reason why the rate of exemption has been so extraordinarily low—only 16 per cent. in 1985 according to the Haringey survey. I understand that the rate of exemption has increased in recent times to about 36 per cent., but it has been an extremely slow process. I understand the anxiety of Ministers to crawl over all the details and to make sure that justice is being done, but I am not at all sure whether that is the job of Ministers. However, if they do that sort of thing, it will clearly be a slow process.
The Department of the Environment wrote to Birmingham city council on 7 May in reply to a letter from the city council dated 22 February. It had taken a very long time to reply, but at the end of its letter the Department of the Environment had the cheek to say:
I would be obliged if an early reply could be forwarded.
That shows what happens if this problem has to be considered in such detail.
I welcome what the Minister intends to do. It will end extremely detailed consideration of minor issues. The amendment sets out clear and straightforward criteria upon which judgments can be made as to whether property has been purpose built for the elderly and whether it should therefore be exempted from the right-to-buy arrangements. Unlike the Minister, however, I am less attracted by the proposal to make one of the criteria convenience of location to shops and public transport.
I accept absolutely that in an ideal world shops and public transport are very important to elderly persons. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Local authorities have to build housing for the elderly wherever sites are available. Sometimes, unfortunately, they are not convenient to shops and public transport. I can think of examples in my constituency of purpose-built housing for the elderly which is not convenient to shops or buses. In certain instances, purpose-built housing was convenient to shops and public transport when the local authority erected it, but we all know what is happening to shops.

Mr. Allan Roberts: And we all know what has happened to public transport.

Mr. Cartwright: I shall be dealing with public transport in a moment.
Small shops are being closed. Shopping is being concentrated in the great out-of-town shopping centres and in hypermarkets, which often means that the small corner shop that was conveniently placed for the elderly is no longer there. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) prejudged what I intended to say. We all know that bus services are not expanding and that often they are a casualty of the Government's deregulation policy. Therefore, I am less persuaded than is the Minister that it is reasonable to build in this criterion as a test of the suitability of the housing to be exempted from the right-to-buy provisions.
I accept that a difficult judgment has to be made. Given the tendency of some local authorities — my own included — to undermine the right-to-buy provisions, I understand the Minister's reluctance to give too much power to local authorities. However, this new clause provides a reasonable compromise. The initial decision lies with the local authority, but it can be challenged in the courts, as can any other local authority decision under the right-to-buy arrangements. That is the sensible way to tackle the problem. Therefore, I prefer the Bill as it left the other place.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister said that the Government have had problems over this issue since 1980. I have been along for the ride ever since I served on the Standing Committee on the Bill that ultimately became the Housing Act 1980. Having served upon nearly every Standing Committee on housing Bills since then, I have witnessed the Government's difficulties and the way in which subsequent housing Ministers have taken up their portfolios, tried to deal with the difficulty and then have moved on to pastures new.
4.15 pm
The Government are in difficulty over their attempt to enshrine the right to buy in legislation because their claim that the right to buy is popular does not apply to the elderly. Public opinion is certainly not on the Government's side. That is why the other place defeated the Government on this issue. Local authorities and charitable organisations, including Help the Aged, oppose the Government's proposal.
The public believe that the elderly should be able to rent adequate, decent housing and that local authorities should be able to protect their stock of housing for the elderly so that when people reach retirement age and need bungalows or sheltered housing such accommodation can be provided for them, thus enabling local authorities to

fulful their duties and responsibilities to the elderly. For that reason, attempts have been made to prevent the Government from selling elderly persons' dwellings arid sheltered housing.
Surveys of tenancy preferences show that most people wish to own their homes rather than to rent accommodation, whether from a local authority, a housing association or a private landlord, but that that does not apply to those of retirement age. Tenancy research shows that the majority of elderly people prefer to rent their homes. Indeed, the statistics show that both the young and the elderly prefer to rent their homes. Many elderly people prefer not to have to deal with repairs or to look after a garden, especially if the husband or the wife has died. Therefore, they want to sell their homes and to move into rented accommodation. The Labour party's policy would enable that to happen. In our view, the right to rent is as important as the right to buy. Therefore, public opinion is on the side of the other place arid the Lords amendment.
There is also concern about the fact that if dwellings rented by the elderly are sold relatives may he involved in the purchase, especially if the elderly person concerned cannot really afford to purchase the property. Their intention may be to acquire the property for their own use when their elderly relatives die or have to be moved, because of infirmity, into other accommodation.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the spurious view that most elderly people want to sell their houses and move into council accommodation, apart from some anecdotal point that has been made while standing at a public bar, what evidence is there of that kind of nonsense? Although many elderly people want to sell a large property and buy a smaller one, I do not know of one elderly person who wants to swap freedom for becoming a council tenant. Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House where this evidence is to be found?

Mr. Roberts: I did not say that most elderly owner-occupiers want to sell their property and become council tenants. I said that a study of tenancy preferences shows that about 60 per cent. of people of retirement age would prefer to rent rather than be owner-occupiers. That is also true of young people.
Any survey of tenancy preferences shows that the vast majority of the British people want to buy their own homes, but many elderly people wish to sell their homes in order to rent and they make such a request to local authorities. That is not bar gossip; it is direct constituency experience. People come to my advice bureau with such a request. Furthermore, I was chairman of the city of Manchester's housing committee for five years; many people said that they wanted to sell their homes and become local authority tenants. But nobody has suggested or implied that the vast majority of owner-occupiers want to become local authority tenants. Nevertheless, a significant minority want to do so, because of the difficulties associated with running their homes as owner-occupiers, especially if the husband or wife has died and if there are problems over repairs and other matters.
I was mentioning the potential for abuse in the system. Relatives who join elderly tenants in purchasing a property may eventually acquire it for their own use. Our great fear is not that elderly people will buy their homes and live in


them as owner-occupiers. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said, if that is what it is about, why should they be denied the right to buy?
However, old people's properties are specially built with public money for the purpose of providing accommodation for the elderly, and such properties could in future be occupied by a young person, a married couple or a couple with children. Many local authorities have letting policies that ensure that children do not live next to old people, because that can be a recipe for conflict. There will be problems if more and more of the properties that were built for the elderly become occupied by people who are not elderly while many old folk are left looking for rented housing.
The Government talk glibly about the better use of the housing stock and sometimes present that as the answer to our housing problem, almost suggesting that we do not need to build new houses or increase the supply of houses, but the essential requirement for a better use of the housing stock is special accommodation for the elderly, so that those people can transfer from their three-bedroomed or four-bedroomed council houses.
Elderly people queue up at our advice bureaux asking for specially built bungalows or flats because they cannot manage their big houses. If the local authority has properties available, it can release larger council houses for families on the waiting list or for families with children who are trapped in deck access properties or in high-rise or walk-up flats. In that way, two needs can be met at the same time. The denial of that possibility to local authorities makes public opinion and the other place conscious of the need to safeguard the stock of housing built specially for the elderly.
The proposed test
reasonably convenient location in relation to shops and public transport
which the Minister alone will interpret is difficult for us to accept, because of the way in which Ministers have interpreted such tests in the past. I was glad that the hon. Member for Eastbourne owned up to some of the decisions that he had taken. Ministers have agreed for insignificant, seemingly irrelevant, reasons that property could be sold. If the proposed test is applied, the Minister might say that because a bus stop is 100 yds away the location is not "reasonably convenient", whereas it would be if the bus stop were only 90 yds away.
Elderly people should be protected. The Minister accused the other place of discrimination on the ground of age, but I believe that the other place was trying to protect the elderly, especially those who need rented accommodation, those who are under-occupying council houses, those who run into difficulties as owner-occupiers and those whose children have left home or whose spouses have died.
It is not Labour party policy, but I think that we should consider offering rent-free accommodation to elderly people who have lived in council houses all their lives. The owner-occupier who receives Government assistance for 20 or 30 years, in the form of tax relief on his mortgage interest, has mortgage-free occupation after a lifetime of subsidy, and I do not see why elderly people in local authority properties should not benefit in a similar way.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I hope that I am pushing at an open door as I raise again the suggestion that I mentioned

earlier, which seemed to have the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).
I thought that it would be right to try to get a pledge today on the transferable discount. There is a problem not only about Bournville housing, but about housing provided by Rowntree, another great charitable family.
Tenants in homes on the excellent estates in Bournville —anyone who knows the area, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr does, knows that it is one of the best housing areas in Birmingham—know that if their houses were built on land owned by the city or the state they are able to buy their homes, but those living in houses built in areas where charitable money met only part of the cost are not allowed to buy their homes—it was the Government's intention that they should be allowed to do so, but some of their Lordships took a different view—but they suffer the great injustice of not being allowed to have the transferable discount that some other people enjoy.
Perhaps only hundreds of people are affected, but surely justice to hundreds is as important as justice to hundreds of thousands. I hope that, after all these years, we shall come to an understanding, which the Opposition seem to support, that those people will be given rights and that we will accept that their situation is not just. If government is not about justice to individuals, what is it about?
I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister, just as I corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne when he was the Minister. I believe that both of my hon. Friends favoured my proposal, but that their advisers did not. As we have present today a Minister, an ex-Minister and the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who hopes to be a Minister, can we agree that justice should be done to people who properly feel aggrieved?

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief, because my view on the sale of council houses and bungalows is well known. I do not agree with the policy. I do not wish to discriminate against old people, but there is a shortage of such accommodation.
My postbag, like that of every other hon. Member, has its share of letters from people who want aged persons' dwellings. Unfortunately, such property is just not available. I can speak only for my own local authority, but in my area every suitable dwelling specifically built for an aged person has been designated as an aged person's dwelling. There were a number of reasons for that, and not least was the fact that designation was a great help in obtaining concessionary television licences for aged people.
There are insufficient aged persons' dwellings to go round. It used to be argued that if council houses were sold the stock was not diminished. That was true, but the letting was lost. An aged person's dwelling is built specifically to help aged persons. If it were passed on to another aged person, there would be some truth in the argument that the housing stock would not be diminished, but nothing in the Bill provides that a property that is sold must be bought by an aged person. When the tenant who has bought the aged person's dwelling dies, the property will be sold on the open market and anyone can buy it, irrespective of his or her age.
My own local authority reserved dwellings for people under 65 so that they could use the last years of their working lives to furnish that property.
Subsection (5)(a) of the Government's proposed new clause refers to
easy access on foot to the dwelling-house".
I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the Government's thinking behind that provision. What is meant by that phrase? Within the locality which I represent there are old-age pensioners' dwellings that are not easily accessible on foot because of the area in which they have been built. Some of the dwellings are on hillsides and, therefore, they do not meet this criterion. If an elderly person is to reside in one of these dwellings, he or she must be physically fit.
4.30 pm
Paragraph (d) refers to "suitable heating arrangements". Heating difficulties have probably been overcome by the installation of central heating systems in most old-age pensioners' dwellings, but some still have only one fireplace on which the heating of the entire house depends. This is a problem that can probably be overcome in a few years' time.
Paragraph (e) refers to
reasonably convenient location in relation to shops and public transport.
I represent a large rural area and many of the dwellings of aged persons are not in a "convenient location" for access to shops and public transport except perhaps the post office. What do the Government mean by a shopping area, for example? Does it mean a number of shops that will supply the needs of aged persons, or part of their needs? How many miles do the Government have in mind that aged persons should have to travel on public transport to reach a shopping area? What should be the frequency of the public transport? There are some places where a bus will be available for such a journey every two or three hours, but next year that service may not be available. If the Government explain their thinking in more detail, many anxieties will be relieved.

Mr. John Patten: It has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the transferable discount is a matter of considerable concern to the individual. Attention has been drawn to this important matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and it has been reflected in correspondence and meetings. The present transferable discount scheme rejoices in the name HOTCHA, and I can never remember what the initials stand for. Civil servants are always serving up things called HOTCHA. The transferable discount for tenants, which is called HOTCHA, applies only to dwellings excluded from the right to buy which were provided with what is known in the trade as HAG—housing association grant —or other public funding. That was not the position, as I recall—I do not have the papers in front of me—at Bournville, but I am willing to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. We do not have a scheme which would enable us to look for transferable discounts in these circumstances.
There is much pressure from all sides for transferable discounts to be examined overall. Someone may not wish to purchase the house in which he is residing and may wish to move to another while carrying the transferable discount on his back, as it were. A number of councils of all political colours, for example, Brent — "Minister praises Brent, shock, horror"— and Bromley, are very

sensibly considering paying sums to council tenants if they agree to move from public sector dwellings into private sector dwellings so as to free public sector accommodation. I learnt yesterday on "This Week Next Week" that another council, Woodspring — if this was on "This Week Next Week" it must be true — is about to do exactly the same thing. Within Government we must consider the overall effect of transferable discounts on different tenants in different positions. The present scheme that is operating under law cannot deal with circumstances such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak refers.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has said that the HOTCHA scheme—Home Ownership for Tenants of Charitable Housing Associations — applies only to housing which was provided by HAG. He then used the phrase "or other public funding". That qualification is by no means clear. I have had complaints expressed to me by a number of tenants of housing association homes which were provided by public funds — sometimes with the assistance of a local authority subsidy — which, nevertheless, do not qualify for the transferable discount. I have been so advised by tenants of Peabody dwellings and of other housing associations. These matters are not entirely clear because we are dealing with an administrative scheme and not one that is governed by statute. It will be helpful if the Minister explains what areas of housing by public funds or subsidy will be subject to the HOTCHA scheme.

Mr. Patten: In the context of this group of amendments, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. This is a complex subject and perhaps we should have considered it in Committee. I do not think that it is something that can be handled on the run this evening.

Mr. Rooker: The Bill is available to the Government.

Mr. Patten: Nor could I satisfactorily devise a scheme which could become part of the Bill, which is the suggestion of the hon. Member for Perry Barr made from a sedentary position. I shall write to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) to set out the present position exactly. I shall write also to my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. The Government must give consideration to these matters, and that is something which we shall do.
I turn to the new criteria which are to be adopted and which were referred to by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). They have been referred to as well by the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). Shops and transport will be only two of the criteria. The Secretary of State will be able to grant an exemption if the availability of the criteria is marginal or not wholly satisfactory if he is satisfied on the evidence as a whole, taking into account all the criteria. Applications will not fail automatically merely because dwellings are a long way from shops. In the application of the new criteria, ministerial judgment will come into the matter.
I respond to the swingeing, broad-ranging and hard-hitting allegations of fiddling and lack of trustworthiness which have been aimed at some mysterious and shadowy figures in government, whatever that is, who have interpreted these rules in the past. They have not been aimed at my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) or myself. It is alleged that the interpretation has been against the interests of public sector tenants.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Why not blame the Minister who has responsibility for sports matters?

Mr. Patten: I must defend my hon. Friend from the vicious attack of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak! My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is devoted to the application of fair and free play, whether in legislation or on the football field.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I withdraw.

Mr. Patten: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has chosen to withdraw such a terrible slur on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary!
The hon. Member for Perry Barr referred to the important evidence of the Institute of Housing. I hope that I enjoy cordial relations with the institute, which is an interesting group. It provides us with important information, and I very often meet its members at conferences. Those who attend the conferences often barrack me, but always in a cheerful way. They have never done so in a nasty or malicious way, perhaps with the exception of one lady who I have always believed to be a member of the institute. She sits below me at meetings and shouts things such as, "Pompous Tory twit". I do not like that sort of thing. I did not come into politics to be described as a pompous Tory twit. The comment that this lady shouted that hurt, and deeply, was "Fat, pompous Tory twit". My tailor in Oxford, Mr. Stamp, labours long and hard to conceal that sort of thing, and he, too, was deeply hurt by the lady's accusation. The thing that really worries me about her is that when she comes to meetings and barracks me she is always knitting. That makes me feel extremely uneasy. There is the sound of the tumbrils coming to get me, and the tricoteuse.
I shall deal with the detail of the Institute of Housing rather than the eccentricities of its members. It stated in evidence that it published in January 1986 that a substantial number of applications were being turned down by Ministers. It said that only 16 per cent. of applications from authorities were successful. For once, the institute was wrong. At the very time that it reported, we were accepting claims from local authorities at a level of about 34 per cent. The House may like to have confirmation from me that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) was correct — the current success rate for local authorities is standing at a little under 36 per cent.
I take what the hon. Member for Woolwich has said very seriously. Of course, we will operate the rules fairly, as we always seek to do. Certainly I always seek to do that. I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will realise that, under the Government's amendment, the Secretary of State would have no choice but to grant an exemption if satisfied that the listed features were present and that the letting test was fulfilled. I hope that that is a safeguard against the sort of things which the hon. Member for Perry Barr has unfairly suggested have happened in the past.

Mr. Rooker: On the Minister's point about portable discounts, if my memory serves me correctly, the Opposition tabled a new amendment during Committee related to portable discounts, but, in the wisdom of the Chair, it was not deemed selectable within the terms of the Bill. Therefore, we are not late in coming forward with our proposal. It might not go down very well with people outside, but we think that it is important to the interests

of the people concerned. That is why it should be on the agenda. I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that he will look into the matter.
I accept the point that, for practical purposes, the tenants described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and others are, in effect, private sector tenants. Their rights are somewhat different, but there is an injustice which must be corrected. I also accept what the Minister said, in a round about way, about some local authorities being unreasonable. I do not deny that. Some local authorities, given wide discretion, would be wholly unreasonable. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But if they are unreasonable they can be hauled before the courts. That is important. I do not wish to encourage people to put money into the hands of the legal profession, but there is an avenue for redress. It would be a problem if every ground floor accommodation in the land was alleged to be wholly, exclusively and particularly suitable for the elderly. That would be a gross travesty of the truth. No one could make that case. To do so would be unreasonable. We must consider the other side of the question, but the Minister seems to want it all his own way, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) observed.
I do not wish to personalise this, but if I do not do so I am accused of not naming the Minister. I do not want to do that because I do not know who makes the decision. There is more than one Minister in the Department. The charge was levied against the way in which the Government operated the 1980 and the 1984 rules. There is plenty of evidence about that. In the past, elderly persons' dwellings that met all the criteria listed were still allowed by Ministers to be sold, so there must be something wrong. What is more, Ministers would not give reasons for those decisions. That has already happened. The evidence exists and it cannot be denied. We are asking for a cast iron, copper-bottomed guarantee that it will not happen again, that reasons will be given and that Ministers will be accountable. The only way in which we will ever achieve that is if we stick with the Lords amendment. I have grave doubts as to how the other place operates, although I do not seek to rubbish it. It is the other House of Parliament, albeit unelected, and we must listen to what it says.
We must support the amendment because of the way in which the system has operated in the past and the way in which the Minister has slipped in the other changes, especially in relation to transport. The Minister has not been as detailed about those points as we should have liked. Essentially, the charges are a transport policy matter and should not be a housing matter, but with the cuts in transport many rural areas can never fulfil the transport criteria as they have lost bus services and other transport.
4.45 pm
These matters must be looked at in the round, and we should give the Lords another opportunity to examine them. We should agree to the Lords amendment and allow the matter to be re-examined. Over the years, the Lords have spent more time considering this matter than we have. I do not wish to imply that they are wiser than we are, but they have pushed the Government a long way and that is to their credit. I also give credit to the Government, who have responded in a much more detailed way than


previously. However, as the Government could not accept more of the spirit of the Lords amendment, the Opposition will vote in favour of the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 117.

Division No. 304]
[4.46 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Alexander, Richard
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Ashby, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Jackson, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Key, Robert


Bottomley Mrs Virginia
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knox, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Latham, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bruinvels, Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butterfill, John
Lester, Jim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Carttiss, Michael
Lightbown, David


Chapman, Sydney
Lilley, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)
Lord, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Coombs, Simon
McCrindle, Robert


Cope, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Critchley, Julian
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David John


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fallon, Michael
Madel, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Antony


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mates, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Gale, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Galley, Roy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gow, Ian
Mudd, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Murphy, Christopher


Greenway, Harry
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Normanton, Tom


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Norris, Steven


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Onslow, Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ottaway, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hannam, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Harris, David
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Harvey, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hawksley, Warren
Porter, Barry


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Heddle, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hickmet, Richard
Powley, John


Hicks, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hill, James
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Renton, Tim


Holt, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon





Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Jerry


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. Francis Maude.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Anderson, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Janner, Hon Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
John, Brynmor


Blair, Anthony
Johnston, Sir Russell


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Boyes, Roland
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lamond, James


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leighton, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cartwright, John
McTaggart, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clay, Robert
Madden, Max


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Martin, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Corbett, Robin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Mikardo, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunningham, Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Prescott, John


Eastham, Ken
Radice, Giles


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Faulds, Andrew
Raynsford, Nick


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Godman, Dr Norman
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)






Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spearing, Nigel



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Mr. Ray Powell and


Wainwright, R.
Mr. Mark Fisher.


Welsh, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment I disagreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof:

New clause

EXCEPTION TO THE RIGHT TO BUY IN CASE OF CERTAIN DWELLING-HOUSES FOR PERSONS OF PENSIONABLE AGE.

Before Clause 1 insert the following new clause—
`. — (1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) substitute—
11. — (1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.
(2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and
(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

(3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
(4) A dwelling-house which the Secretary of State is satisfied has the following features, shall, subject to sub-paragraph (3), be taken for the purposes of this paragraph to be particlarly suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age.
(5) Those features are—

(a) easy access on foot to the dwelling-house, including in the case of a flat above or below ground-floor level access by lift to the level of the dwelling-house;
(b) accommodation on one level;
(c) no more than two bedrooms;
(d) suitable heating arrangements for at least the living room and one bedroom;
(e) reasonably convenient location in relation to shops and public transport.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order vary the list of features in sub-paragraph (5) by adding or deleting features or amending the description of any listed feature; and an order may contain such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(7) An order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).".
(2) The above amendment applies to any decision made by the Secretary of State after the commencement of this section, notwithstanding that the tenant's notice claiming the right to buy was served, or the application for a determination was made, before commencement.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 1

DISCOUNT ON RIGHT TO BUY AND SIMILAR SALES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 1, after "is" insert
, (subject to any order under subsection (2A))".

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and the amendments thereto.

Mr. Patten: Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 provide for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have power to provide by order for higher discounts to be available to tenants exercising the right to buy. This is an important provision. Currently, as the House is all too well aware, a tenant of two years' standing qualifies to buy at a discount rate of 32 per cent., but if the tenant has more than the basic two years he or she qualifies for extra discount, in steps of 1 per cent. for each additional year, up to a maximum of 60 per cent. overall. Clause 1, of course, provides for the discount scale for flats to run from a minimum of 44 per cent. by 2 per cent. steps to 70 per cent. The proposed power will enable the minimum and maximum discount and the size of the steps to be increased by order.
Amendment No. 4 makes parallel provision for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—who is responsible for housing in Scotland is on the Front Bench. The reason for making this amendment in the Housing and Planning Bill rather than the Housing (Scotland) Bill is timing. When the amendments were tabled in another place, it was too late to add new matter to the Scottish measure.

Mr. Maxton: Feeble.

Mr. Patten: I never give feeble excuses; my explanations are always telling and to the point. I draw the attention of the House to the important safeguards in the amendments. There is an important safeguard, and the House should reflect on it. The power to make orders is to be exercisable only with the consent of the Treasury, and orders are to require affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. So any orders which may be made will be subject not only to the due financial scrutiny of our friends in Great George street, but, and much more importantly from the point of view of Opposition Members, to that of Parliament. The reason for seeking that power is that it seems sensible at this stage to have flexibility to adjust the right-to-buy discount scales further in the light of experience.
5 pm
This is the third time that Parliament has legislated on this subject: the Housing Act 1980 provided for a maximum discount of 10 per cent., the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, which was brought to the House by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), raised it to 60 per cent., and now we are providing for higher discounts for flats. We were pressed in Committee to go even further. It would not be surprising if, at some point, it seemed right to change the discount scales again. If that were so, it would be a pity if the pressures of the legislative programme held it up.


That is why we propose a power to make changes by order, subject, as I have said to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative resolution procedure.
We do not propose to make any changes at the moment. It would be misleading if I were to volunteer suggestions as to the sort of changes that might seem right at some future date. At the same time, it would be shortsighted of the Government, and certainly of me, if we did not open our minds to the possibility of future changes in right-to-buy discounts.
The public housing sector is very different from what it was in 1980. It is only to be expected that in two, four or six years the problems and opportunities could look very different again. That is why it seems sensible from the administrative point of view to provide that future changes could be made without the need for main legislation.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look closely at the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). They are interesting amendments and tell us much about Liberal party thoughts on housing. The amendments would enable orders to be made reducing discounts below the levels for which the statute provides. It seems that that is what the Liberal party is up to, and it is surely not right. The right to buy—I am not speaking from a partisan position—is firmly established, and it is reasonable for tenants thinking about buying their homes in the future to make plans on the assumption that the option of exercising the right to buy will not be taken away or made less attractive at some future date. To argue by analogy, people entering into an agreement to buy their homes under mortgage conditions would want to know what mortgage interest tax relief would be available in the future.

Mr. Robin Squire: rose—

Mr. Patten: I should like to know what my hon. Friend has to say about that.

Mr. Squire: I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that a large number of would-be purchasers in Havering in the early 1970s lost out when the council changed control and bitterly resented the action of the then Labour council in that respect.

Mr. Patten: That was with the Labour council in Havering then; now the Liberal party nationally seems to want to sow uncertainty in the minds of council tenants.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I should not like my hon. Friend to think that it was only the Labour party and the Liberal party. The SDP parliamentary candidate for my constituency has come out against council house sales.

Mr. Patten: Exactly. It seems to be—

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Patten: May I please answer the first question? I do not want to get to the stage of intervening in my own answers, as it confuses me, and it certainly confuses the House.
We see that all parties, except the Conservative party, express doubt, both nationally and locally, on the right to buy, and the future of the right to buy.

Mr. Ross: Although the Minister was not in his present position then, roofing grants for houses built before 1919 were a marvellous give-away for about a year. There are

now waiting lists of hundreds. That is what Conservative policy has done to housing and roofing grants.

Mr. Patten: I must restrict myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I would not wish to be ruled out of order by you. I must not go down the seductive road of discussing roofing grants as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because we are discussing the right to buy and the Liberal amendments.
The amendments would create uncertainty if tenants could not assume that discounts would be at least as favourable in the future as they are now. There is already enough uncertainty in tenants' minds because of the clear qualifications of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party on the right to buy. They both have qualifications and, incidentally, they do not speak with one voice on that issue. Neither the Liberal party nor the SDP supports the right to buy wholeheartedly and without qualifications. They are sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of tenants of council flats and council houses, just as their new, emerging views on mortgage interest tax relief are sowing uncertainty in the minds of home owners and prospective home owners.
Any future Government would be perfectly free to bring forward legislation to dismantle the right-to-buy scheme, or to reduce the discounts available. If that is what the Liberal party has in mind, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey might like to take the opportunity today to put his party's intention on the record and tell us the contents of its secret manifesto on the right to buy. If the intention of Opposition Members is to reduce discounts available to tenants, surely that ought to be the subject of main legislation. I invite the House to reject the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 on those grounds.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is trying the trick that he tried yesterday in a different forum, which gave him the opportunity to try to expose differences in Opposition parties on matters of principle that are very important outside the House. Yesterday, it was mortgage interest tax relief. I shall return to that later. I shall deal first with the amendments in the round before, quite properly, answering the questions that the Minister raised. I make it clear that there is not only agreement between the party of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) — the Social Democratic party—and my own, but that agreement will allay fears and, indeed, encourage people to trust our views on these matters rather than those of the Minister arid his colleagues.
The issue here is the old and familiar constitutional question of which matters come into primary legislation and which into secondary legislation. The starting point is whether it is appropriate that the raising and lowering of discount levels, which would affect tens of thousands if riot hundreds of thousands of people, should go through the House by way of an order with a short debate probably lasting a maximum of one and a half hours and probably late in the evening. On the constitutional principle, it seems appropriate that matters of significant importance to people contemplating buying or local authorities contemplating having to sell their housing should be the subject of primary rather than secondary legislation. The


Lords amendments apply to England and Wales and also to Scotland, and provide that several matters will be subject to the secondary legislation procedure: first, whether the discount should be raised; secondly, the percentage by which the increase over the time scale provided in the legislation is arranged; thirdly, whether there can be different provisions in different cases. There is also a grey area that the Minister wishes to include in the subsidiary legislation, which is described as
incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions".
That may be a something or a nothing.
The most recent experience that we have had of such secondary legislation, dealing with many authorities in Britain or classes of them, on individual matters connected with financing and where extreme problems have been caused for those authorities and for the House, was in the context of the Rates Act. Under that Act, rate capping was permitted by the Government. The Government now bring forward an order, in which they list the authorities that they intend to rate-cap. In one debate all the finances of all the authorities—some of the largest city, borough or district authorities in Britain — come under the scrutiny of the House. The House will recall that there have been regular complaints that this mechanism for addressing the severe and important questions of the financing of local government does not provide a suitable opportunity or adequate time for sufficiently detailed debate. The underlying question is whether it is appropriate to debate such matters on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee or, more importantly, locally in the areas of those authorities. Experience of the rate-capping legislation has shown the procedures to be profoundly unsatisfactory.
I come to whether my amendment on the English provision and the similar amendment to Lords amendment No. 4 on the Scottish provision provide an acceptable alternative to the Lords amendment. The first question is whether the procedure should be carried out in the House by secondary or primary legislation. My view is that it should be primary legislation because of the number of people affected and the value of the matters under consideration. If that is not to be so, however, my amendment seeks to explore whether the Government accept that it is appropriate that they should be able to vary the provisions in either direction if they think that that is suitable. It is up to the Government of the day to decide the parameters within which the right to buy operates. That has been the decision that the Government determined when they legislated in 1980 creating an entitlement to buy for council tenants. That has come to be accepted increasingly across the country, and it seems unfair and lacking in even-handedness if the Government can always and only increase discounts but never reduce them.
The Minister asked for our view and I shall give it to him. It is clear that there has been some unhappiness over the years. As the Minister knows, we have recently spent some time making sure that we have a clear and correct position to put to the country. The alliance is now agreed that the right to buy will remain and that Parliament should set the limits within which it operates, but we should like increased local discretion over exemptions and discounts.
The reason for that, as the Minister should know well, is different areas, which may be Liberal, Social Democratic party, alliance, Labour or Tory controlled, have different circumstances. The Minister, with the Labour housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and myself yesterday watched a film on the now twice quoted "This Week Next Week" programme, from Woodspring district council in Somerset — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Avon."] I beg the pardon of the House. It is in Avon. The Conservative chairman of Woodspring council housing committee expressed to the watching world dissatisfaction with the way in which the right-to-buy system was operating because it was applying unfairly to the council in determining its housing priorities.
I hope that the Minister, as a Minister in the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for local government, will accept from his national knowledge and his local experience in Oxford that one cannot say that the same circumstances apply all over the country. There have been debates in the House on portable discounts for estates such as the Bournville estate in Birmingham, the Peabody estates in London or the Dulwich College estate in Southwark. There are different local circumstances in each case. I ask the Minister to agree that it is appropriate, whether in Labour-controlled Southwark, Conservative-controlled Woodspring or alliance-controlled Sutton, that within limits fixed by the House local authorities should be able to make certain decisions, because those decisions should depend on the pressures on the various elements in the housing stock — old people's housing, sheltered housing, and so on—at any given time.
5.15 pm
The Minister referred to uncertainty about another matter, but there is no uncertainty there. As he knows, yesterday I made it clear to him publicly that the alliance is committed to sustaining a regime under which people buying their homes on a mortgage will get tax relief which they can set against the cost of the mortgage. It is mischievous of the hon. Gentleman to pretend that he does not know that and did not hear that yesterday. He knows that the alliance, like the Conservative party and all other parties, is committed to the retention of that form of interest relief.

Mr. John Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I did not intervene in the Minister's speech. He heard the argument yesterday and it is important that he should not misrepresent it when the subject is raised in a debate in the House the very next day.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: The debate is about whether the Government think that in the light of the Rates Act—

Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: —and other experiences there should or should not be a summary procedure for determining important matters connected with housing supply. From the Liberal Bench, I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be better not to have a summary procedure and to keep changes to primary legislation. That is what we should like most. But if the Minister is allowing a summary procedure, he should put within it a range of options available to himself and his successors.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Sadly, everything that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said will confirm the fear of council tenants around the country that, by foolishly voting for the Liberal or Social Democratic party, they will lessen their chances of purchasing their council house. It is naive in the extreme to suggest that one can have local variations so that in one council area there is a discount of 60 per cent. while someone's twin brother living in another area has a different discount right. That is deeply unfair. I know that the Liberals and the Social Democratic party do not believe very much in fairness and equity, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have noticed that one.
I return to more important matters because it is most unlikely that most local authorities will have the opportunity to choose discount rates. I refer to a matter that concerns many of my constituents greatly. Unfortunately, in many respects, the price of housing in the Thames valley and my constituency has risen dramatically in recent years. Many of my council house tenants who are eligible for 40, 50 or 60 per cent. discounts on the purchase of their council house find that they do not receive their maximum discount because when the Housing Act 1980 was passed a maximum of £25,000 was put into the Act as the discount that was allowable notwithstanding the percentage. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to review that in any order that he introduces because many people are being penalised unfairly. It might be thought that, if the house was worth so much money that one could get a discount above £25,000, one could probably afford the house anyway—

Mr. Rooker: indicated assent.

Mr. MacKay: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. The majority of people eligible for those large discounts are fairly senior members of the community who are in their 50s or early 60s and their chances of getting a substantial mortgage, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) realises, are slim. Therefore, it has made the difference, in a number of cases in my constituency, between buying or not buying a council house. Without getting the full 60 per cent. discount, because of the £25,000 limit, they have had to withdraw from purchasing because they cannot obtain mortgage facilities on the number of years they have left before reaching retirement age.
It is to be hoped that very shortly we shall obtain the Royal Assent to this Bill. It is desperately important for the Department of the Environment to make it clear to all local authorities how quickly they can proceed to sell at the new discount rates and how quickly buyers can sell without having to repay the discount. Some of my constituents have exchanged contracts and are waiting to complete the sale of their council houses. They are waiting to confirm that the five years is reduced to three. There are long chains involved. At the moment Bracknell district council and the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will not be able to say when those people can complete, even after Royal Assent. Therefore, I hope that clear guidelines are sent out to all local authorities quickly.

Mr. John Fraser: I listened to the Minister moving this amendment. He displayed all the qualities of the Tory party in relation to housing. He did not speak with the words of the builder, the developer, or the provider of

housing but only with the philosophy of the Tory estate agent out to sell public assets and take his own political commission. That sums up Tory policy towards homes. They want to reduce the numbers being built and they are making no effort to meet the massive housing need in this country. The emphasis is on the sale rather than the provision of housing.
Our principal objection to this amendment is that it deprives the House of the ability to talk about council housing or local authority housing association housing in the round. It denies the House the ability to look at the problems and opportunities of the right to buy in a much more rounded context. The amendment enable, the Government not to vary the level of discount, but to increase it and assist in the sale of public assets — in some circumstances that is desirable—without considering all the other aspects of the matter. We oppose the Lords amendment because we believe that this is a matter that should be dealt with by primary legislation, so that there is an opportunity to discuss other issues.
This is not a debate about the right to buy. The Labour party has made it clear that we do not intend to repeal the principle of the right to buy, although we shall make some changes. One of the principal changes will be to ensure that much of the £6,000 million that has been derived from the sale of council houses and flats will be used to build replacement houses and flats.
One of the attractive features of the right to buy when the Tory party first announced it was that it was said that it would release homes that, people wanted to own for themselves—there is nothing capitalist or socialist about owning one's own home—and that it would also release money to provide other homes. To that degree, the proposition is one which can be fully supported. However, as soon as the sale of council houses had taken off, the Treasury intervened—the Treasury is mentioned in the amendment—to ensure that that money was not to be used for the replacement of stock. A Labour Government would ensure that, although the right to buy would continue, all money derived from the sale of homes would be used to provide more homes, which are so badly needed. We want an opportunity to put that proposition in primary legislation before the House. The Labour party will ensure that when homes are sold in areas where there is housing need a local authority—without any damage or injury to people who have bought their own home — will have a pre-purchase option to take the home back into its stock of homes to let. That does no harm to the purchaser. Indeed, it may help purchasers because they will not have to pay an estate agent's commission and will save some money.
There are some parts of the country where the shortage of homes to rent is so enormously acute — I have mentioned central London—that it would be irresponsible to continue with the sale of homes. In those circumstances we should compensate the tenants by giving them a transferable discount to move elsewhere. There is no doubt that there are some parts of the metropolis where the shortage of land and homes to rent is so acute and severe that it is irresponsible for the Government to be concentrating a large part of their housing association expenditure through the Housing Corporation on stress area investment and homes to rent in central London. I agree with the proposition that they should do that, but it is irresponsible to be pushing money into that sort of exercise and at the same time stripping out the same kind


of homes which are provided by local authorities. Therefore, although we shall keep the right to buy, we shall certainly want to make some changes to which no sensible person would object.
Our objection to this amendment is that it enables the Government to increase the discount without any other debate. The House would be restricted to about 90 minutes of debate, usually after 10 o'clock, on what could be a transfer of public assets involving many millions of pounds, without any guarantee that the money derived from that sale will be put back into housing. We believe that the housing crisis in this country demands more than a single-issue debate which takes place in 90 minutes. We are suspicious of the Government taking a power that may be used to give an extremely expensive bribe to the electorate shortly before an election. We demand to be able to debate not just the sale of council housing but the distribution and social effects. We want to debate the use of the proceeds and we challenge the ease with which the Government might make a crude and irresponsible bribe by giving away what amounts to another person's assets in order to achieve some electoral advantage. For those reasons we shall vote against the amendment introduced in the other place.

Mr. Ian Gow: This debate will be remembered because of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who purported to speak on behalf of what is known as the alliance. While he was addressing the House, the official spokesman on housing for the Social Democratic party was seated only a few feet from him. You will have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey move his amendment which would give my hon. Friend the Minister the power to vary by order the rates of discount downwards. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was the policy of the Liberal party and the alliance that there should be different rates of discount and variations in the right to buy according to which local authority a tenant happens to live in. In effect, he was saying that if the Liberals have their way there would be diminished opportunities for discount and the right to buy affecting some people according to the accident of the borough or district in which they happen to live.
I was watching the face of the housing spokesman for the Social Democratic party very closely as he listened to the exposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. When the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) seeks to give his own gloss or interpretaton or, if he is a man of courage, his own repudiation of the exposition of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A revelation has been made, not only to the House of Commons, but to those who listen carefully to what goes on here about the right to buy. The revelation is from the Liberal party and it has never before been spelt out so clearly. We have heard that the Liberal party is in the business of restricting not only the right to buy —because that would depend, in the Liberal spokesman's view, upon where one lives—but the right to discount.
5.30 pm
That astonishing speech, which I cannot believe has been approved either by the doctor or by the leader of the

Liberal party, will be repudiated by both. My advice to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is that when he is about to make a new policy statement on behalf of his party he would be wise to have it cleared by both those gentlemen.

Mr. John Patten: That also applies to helicopters.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend must not lead me astray about helicopters. That was when the Liberal leader was summoned by the leader of the party of which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) is a distinguished adornment from my constituency so that a meeting could be held at the House of Commons.
I agree strongly that the House should agree with the Lords in the amendment. The Housing Act 1980 set a three-year qualification period before a tenant could exercise the right to buy. The maximum discount was 33 per cent. after three years' tenancy and up to 50 per cent. after 20 years' tenancy. The Housing and Building Control Act 1984 diminished the qualification period from three years to two years and increased the maximum discount to 60 per cent. We are now talking about the third change that we have made in the discount level. We are moving from 44 per cent. to 70 per cent. in respect of discounts for flats.
I seek clarification from the Minister. Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend is not able by order, even with approval by both Houses of Parliament, to vary the two-year qualification period? I believe that it would be a sensible change if we built on the reduction in the 1984 Act from three years to two years by making a further reduction in the qualifying period from two years to one year. I am a moderate man and I make only a modest proposal. On my reading of the Lords amendment, the Minister will not be able to do that by order but will have to propose primary legislation.
If it is reasonable, as I believe it to be, to allow a tenant of 30 years a 60 per cent. discount, why do we not carry the logic further and allow a tenant extra discount according to the total number of years as tenant? Not many people will have been local authority tenants for 30 years or more, but those who have, by definition, will be elderly and will find it difficult to obtain a mortgage. Most will be retired. It would be right to continue the principle that we have fashioned by increasing the discount along with each year of tenancy over the 60 per cent. discount for a house and the 70 per cent. discount on a flat.
Discount depends upon the value of the house or flat. I remind my hon. Friend of an anomaly illustrated by a case on which we had an Adjournment debate on 19 June. Sometimes before a district council places a value on a house or flat it invites the district valuer to give his advice on the open market value of the property. If a tenant disputes that value he has the right of appeal to the district valuer—to the very person who originally advised the council about the open market value of that property. That is manifestly unfair. The district valuer is invited to determine an appeal against a value which he fixed when asked informally by the council for advice.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Surely a tenant can appeal to the land tribunal.

Mr. Gow: I wish that my hon. Friend were right.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is right because when he was Minister he refused to accept my amendment to that effect.

Mr. Gow: I think that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is agreeing with me when I say that there is no appeal beyond the district valuer. I did not agree with his amendment, but I regret that the district valuer is both the court of first instance and the court of appeal. I do not necessarily think that the land tribunal is the right body to hear such appeals. However, the valuation issue is so important that there should be a change in the system. I know that we cannot make such a change at this stage, but I urge the Minister to consider the arguments.
When a district council places a value on a property following the application by a tenant to exercise the right to buy it should not at that stage seek advice from the district valuer. The local authority should seek advice from the private sector, from a local estate agent. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will be pleased at that suggestion. If a tenant disputes the value decided by the district council, it is wrong that he should have to appeal to the person who originally fixed the value.
The House will have noted with warm approval that the one millionth council house was sold in August this year—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): It was in Scotland.

Mr. Gow: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary reminds us of that.
One of the reasons why so few flats have been sold compared with houses is that the values placed on flats, whether by district councils, frequently following the advice of the district valuer, or by district valuers on appeal, are too high. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister does not agree with me but that is so. Too often there is no comparison by which either the council or the district valuer can decide a value. The only way in which we can determine the open market value of an empty flat, whether on the 10th or the 20th floor, is to put it up for sale. That will tell us its value with unerring accuracy and indisputable logic.
I hope that in the next Bill which my hon. Friend the Minister introduces he will reconsider this vital issue of the value of flats. I congratulate the other place on having introduced this excellent amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will very shortly submit to both Houses of Parliament proposals to increase the discount on the sales of houses and flats, so that extra discount will continue to be given according to the number of years that someone has been a local authority tenant.
Finally, I commend to all hon. Members a deep study of the astonishing declaration of policy made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: One of the benefits of attending this sort of debate is that one learns something new. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for clearing up my misapprehension about appeals against a district valuer's valuation. I had been labouring under that misapprehension for some considerable time. But I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will forgive me for suggesting that he is obviously labouring under a misapprehension too in thinking that I have any great empathy with estate agents, since I have no connection with that profession and not generally much sympathy for it either.
I wish to underscore a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) when he referred to the maximum level of discount allowable. In the outer south-east, and many parts of London, the average valuation of council houses is very high. The valuation of a council house in my constituency would have to be put at £40,000 or £41,000 or less for someone to obtain the maximum discount on it. One cannot buy any council house in my constituency for less than that price, and that means that someone who has clocked up his full 30 years is very much on the borderline at the bottom end of the market, and as he moves up the market he is increasingly penalised. Anyone living in a semidetached house — many were built by the former Commission for the New Towns and by the Hemel Hempstead development corporation—would automatically be penalised. Three or four-bedroomed detached council houses were built for middle and senior management. Some people moved from London and have been in them since they were first built. They have not taken advantage of the opportunity to buy, and have no prospect of doing so at the moment unless they have very significant savings.
That difficulty is compounded by the fact that house prices in those areas move up more sharply than in other parts of the country. The problem gets worse and worse. Thus, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some sympathetic consideration to the points that have been raised.
I welcome the positive steps that my hon. Friend has taken in response to the pressure put on him by myself and other Back Benchers in Committee. The amendment represents progress, although I wish that the Minister had gone further. Someone contemplating buying a flat or house in the areas represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East and myself would find that prices were increasing too fast for any savings that he could possibly make. Therefore, we should review the maximum discount regularly simply to keep the price of those houses and flats within the reach of those who live in them.
5.45 pm
There is an opportunity for people to freeze the price originally for two years, and now for three years as, I am glad to say, my hon. Friend the Minister accepted my amendment. However it would have been much more satisfactory if that had been extended ad infinitum, as it would have brought all of the houses and flats eventually within the reach of those who live in them.
The Government have made a significant move. There is no doubt that it has certainly been more difficult to sell flats than houses. That to a large extent is because of the price. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the absence of market indicators about what that price should be has been no help in trying to establish what people can afford. I hope that one consequence of the legislation will be to extend the same sort of opportunity to tenants of flats.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) was characteristically gentle, but at the same time hostile towards many of the people in his constituency and other parts of London who want to buy their council houses and flats. He suggested that, according to Labour party policy, portable discounts might be available to people instead of them buying the houses or flats in which they live. But that


defeats the whole point of the exercise, because many of my constituents and, no doubt, those of the hon. Member for Norwood have bought their houses and flats because they are their cherished homes. They are not simply bricks and mortar, but the places in which they have lived and brought up their families, and to which they have made many improvements. They may have brought their gardens up to the standards that they want. They may like the neighbourhood because it is close to the facilities that they use.
If the portable discount scheme became a substitute for the right to buy, those people would have to uproot and shift out, thus bringing even more pressure to bear on land and housing in outer London and the south-east. That area already has enough problems.
It was with great reluctance that I agreed to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne when he was Minister that portable discounts should apply to tenants of charitable housing association houses. Those people must enjoy the same privileges as any other tenant where public money is involved. They, too, should have the right to buy the houses or flats in which they live. The attitude of the other place on this matter is absolutely reprehensible. When I spoke to Lord Selkirk, one of the principal peers involved in defeating the Government on that occasion, and invited him to discuss the matter with charitable housing association tenants in my constituency, he refused point blank to do so. He said that he was not interested in their point of view. That is all too typical of the attitude of those in another place who enjoy the privilege of owning one, two, three or more houses but who have at every opportunity sought to restrict home ownership.
I have great pleasure in supporting the Government's amendment, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to my criticisms about its omissions.

Mr. Maxton: It is with some trepidation that a Scottish Member of Parliament intervenes in what is essentially an English debate and an English Bill. I must point out to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that the Earl of Selkirk normally takes his seat in the House of Lords on the Conservative side—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: So what?

Mr. Maxton: Lord Selkirk is the uncle of the Conservative Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and the entire Housing (Scotland) Bill is about him. That Bill is largely about giving housing association tenants the right to buy. The Minister has shown the greatest concern for one housing association above all others — the Link housing association in Barnton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. One of the most of the interesting things about the whole debate has been how the uncle of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has spent most of the time trying to ensure that that is not affected.
I rise to speak because amendment No. 4 is related entirely to Scotland. Even if the Government had had a complete change of heart and had decided to abolish discounts altogether at this late stage, I would still have objected, either from the Back Benches or from the Opposition Dispatch Box, to the fact that we have a major Scottish clause in a Bill relating to England and Wales. I

accept that part II on planning covers Scotland, but part I is related to housing in England and Wales and does not cover Scotland.
The Minister's excuse for that is that it was too late to introduce a similar clause in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the final stages of which will be dealt with by the House tomorrow. I do not understand that. The Housing (Scotland) Bill started its progress through the House of Commons in November, nearly 12 months ago. The Minister now tells us that it is too late to include an amendment that the Minister himself described as a sensible proposal. I said at the time that the Minister's reason was feeble and he tried to deny that, but he has made no effort to explain why this amendment is sensible now when it appeared to make no impact on the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office in November. It did not even impinge upon him. Why, if it is sensible today, was it not sensible then? If it was not sensible in November, why was not it sensible when the Government came to change the discounts yet again on flats? That amendment was included in the Housing (Scotland) Bill in another place and we debated it here. It is an insult to Scottish Members of Parliament and the way in which Scottish legislation is considered in the House for a clause of this nature to be suddenly put into a Bill at this late stage.
It is time that the House took a decision about what is and what is not Scottish legislation. There should be a clear demarcation between Scottish and English legislation. A measure relating to housing in Scotland should go into Scottish legislation. That is the custom for most of our legislation and yet suddenly the Government consistently abuse that by including clauses relating to Scotland in other Bills.
The Minister tried to suggest that every party's views on the right to buy differed from those of the Government and that somehow or other this was a popular measure. That has always been the argument. The Government almost make it clear that discounts and the right to buy are a matter of buying votes among council house tenants. It is worth pointing out that since 1979, when the Government introduced the right to buy and then the first discounts, charging them once and now again, their popularity in Scotland has gone down and down. The latest opinion poll showed them enjoying the marvellous support of 14 per cent. of the Scottish people. Five Conservative Members of Parliament out of 21 will be lucky if they hold their seats at the next general election. That is what the Scottish people think about the Government and this type of legislation. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is bitterly disappointed that the Prime Minister overlooked him yet again in the reshuffle. I read in the press that he was expecting high office but did not get it.
The Minister will have a difficult job explaining to the House why this Scottish clause is in the Bill and he will have an even more difficult job explaining why such legislation is not in a Scottish Bill. I and my hon. Friends will vote against the amendment tonight.

Mr. Ancram: I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) question the popularity of the right to buy in Scotland. He said that its unpopularity was evinced by the fact that every time we put up discounts our popularity declined. The Labour party conference last March considered a report drawn up by an academic who used to be a Labour councillor. He


discovered that 67 per cent. of Labour supporters wanted the right to buy. That is why at that conference the Labour party in Scotland decided to stop opposing the sale of council houses — [Interruption.] It did not follow the English and it did not pursue the path of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, (Mr. Rooker).
When I pressed the hon. Member for Cathcart, during the passage of the Bill, to tell us the policy of the Labour party in Scotland he consistently refused to do so. It is refreshing to hear from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that at least the Labour party is clear on its policy down here, even though he may disagree with it. I hope that he will advise his hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart before we get too much nearer a general election that it would at least be honest to tell the Scottish people what Labour party policy is.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister must be unable to read. The Labour party passed its policy document at the March conference. If his advisers are incapable of obtaining a copy, I will send him one. There are differences between housing in Scotland and England. That is why we have separate housing legislation. I wish that the Minister would accept that.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman keeps taking refuge in that document. On a previous occasion he offered to send me a copy. I have been waiting five months, but it has not yet arrived. I suspect that I know why. When the millionth council house was sold in Moray in September 1986 I was listening to the car radio as I travelled to London and I heard the hon. Gentleman making it clear that he opposed the right to buy. Obviously, he does not want to send me that document if it undermines his own arguments.
The hon. Gentleman asks "Why now?" The reasons for the amendment were set out most persuasively by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and I shall not try to add to those. The proposal is sensible. We came to that view at the same time—[Interruption.] We come to many sensible conclusions together on the Conservative Benches even if Labour Members are unable to do so. At the end of July the Housing (Scotland) Bill had already left the House of Lords and returned to this House, so it was not possible to insert the provision. If the hon. Member for Cathcart checks our proceedings, he will discover that. It was therefore decided that the provisions should be inserted in this Bill. If we do not have similar provisions for Scotland and England, different discounts might apply in the future merely because of geographical differences, as my hon. Friends mentioned. That would cause great resentment among the 67 per cent. of Labour supporters in Scotland who want the right to buy.
The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should have differences between Scotland and England. It is surprising how selective he is. When we have differences in the rating of sports clubs because the law in England is different from the law in Scotland, for example, the hon. Gentleman is among the first to ask me to legislate to bring the law in Scotland into line. On that, I rest my case.

6 pm

Mr. John Patten: We all greatly enjoyed that skirmish. I hope that it is clear from the debate that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland

and I are at one on this matter. We have had many consultations and have reached exactly the same conclusions at different times.
I listened with great care to the brief speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in which he restated well-known Labour party policy on the right to buy. There are considerable differences between us and I shall not attempt to elaborate on them. There was nothing new in his position any more than there would be in mine if I repeated it this evening. We simply disagree on the constitutional propriety of changing discounts by order. To make even minor changes to discounts can be a long drawn out business involving primary legislation. It is for the convenience of good government and for the administration of the House to change discounts by order. I am sorry that we disagree about that because we agreed on many matters in Committee.
The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was much more interesting in terms of new information. Those of us who were lucky enough to be present listened to it with great attention. I listened with some interest to what he said about mortgages, but I am still entirely unclear about the attitude of the alliance towards mortgage interest tax relief. The hon. Gentleman seemed to support the status quo, but he painted a completely different picture from that which he gave yesterday on the excellent television programme "This Week Next Week", on which we were privileged to appear together with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). We shall have to continue looking at the alliance position on mortgage interest tax relief.
We are on clearer ground about the right to buy because the hon. Gentleman was specific about that. He spoke on behalf of the alliance—that is, the Liberal and Social Democratic parties—although his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), the SDP Front Bench spokesman, was also present. First, he said that this was a constitutional issue and that if one wanted to put discounts up or down one should have the opportunity to do so. That must mean that the alliance intends at least to consider reducing the discounts available to council tenants, should it ever have the opportunity. If not, why argue for such a power in the first place? That revelation is now on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) almost shot my fox—a disgusting habit—on the hon. Gentleman's second point. I repeat my hon. Friend's comments. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was speaking as the alliance spokesman on housing, it is now clear that it is alliance policy to bring about substantial changes in the right to buy for council tenants of flats and houses if it ever gets the opportunity. Throughout the country, prospective council house purchasers will want to know whether they will be affected. They will want to know whether a person in place A will receive a bigger discount than a person in place B, and whether a person in place C will be given the chance to buy while a person in place D will not because the local council has so decided. The alliance cannot have it both ways. We now have it on the record as official alliance policy that substantial changes to the right-to-buy legislation will be made. We want to know who the losers will be, where they are, how many people will be threatened and how, and we shall find that out in the next


18 months. For once, we have had a straight answer from an alliance spokesman and it is on the record that the alliance is not fully in favour of the right to buy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman did not permit me to intervene in his speech.
I now turn to friendlier territory—and what could be friendlier than the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)? Both pressed me about the upper limit of £25,000. It is, indeed, a serious issue and applies to the right-to-buy discount by virtue of an order under section 131 of the Housing Act 1985. Many hon. Members have urged me to raise that limit and I am considering the matter now. I hope to make my views known shortly — to use that deathless ministerial parlance. On the second point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East — the question of making information available to local authorities such as his excellent authorities in Bracknell and the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which have done so much to promote the right to buy—I will ensure that they have full information about the new provisions of what I hope will soon become the Housing and Planning Act 1986 well in advance of the due date of the Act becoming law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne raised a couple of important points about the qualifying period. Alas, the powers which the House is invited to approve this evening do not extend to that and further primary legislation will be needed. Obviously, I must turn my attention to that in the future as well as to my hon. Friend's point about the valuation placed on flats, which he also raised in his interesting speech on Second Reading to which I had the chance to respond.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West spoke of the need to keep under continuous review the level of discount, the dates on which houses were purchased and their relation to the discount obtaining at that time. It has been a most interesting debate and I have been able to assure many of my hon. Friends about detailed points on the amendment, but above all this debate will be remembered by all of us as the one when the alliance finally revealed its policy on the right to buy.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 121.

Division No. 305]
[6.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Critchley, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Bruinvels, Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fallon, Michael





Favell, Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moate, Roger


Forth, Eric
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Franks, Cecil
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mudd, David


Freeman, Roger
Murphy, Christopher


Fry, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Galley, Roy
Normanton, Tom


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Norris, Steven


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Ottaway, Richard


Gow, Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Greenway, Harry
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Pawsey, James


Ground, Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, Barry


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Haselhurst, Alan
Powley, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hawksley, Warren
Price, Sir David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raffan, Keith


Heddle, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hickmet, Richard
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hill, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hind, Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew


Hirst, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Holt, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Jackson, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Spencer, Derek


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Squire, Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stanbrook, Ivor


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Latham, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lester, Jim
Thurnham, Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lightbown, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lilley, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lyell, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


McCrindle, Robert
Waller, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Warren, Kenneth


Maclennan, Robert
Watts, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Madel, David
Wheeler, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Malone, Gerald
Wolfson, Mark


Maples, John
Wood, Timothy


Marlow, Antony
Yeo, Tim


Mates, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mellor, David
Mr. Richard Ryder and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Francis Maude.






NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Janner, Hon Greville


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
John, Brynmor


Barnett, Guy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Barron, Kevin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Beith, A. J.
Lamond, James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leadbitter, Ted


Blair, Anthony
Leighton, Ronald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyes, Roland
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchan, Norman
McTaggart, Robert


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Martin, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cartwright, John
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clarke, Thomas
Meacher, Michael


Clay, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Clelland, David Gordon
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Park, George


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Patchett, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pendry, Tom


Crowther, Stan
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Randall, Stuart


Cunningham, Dr John
Raynsford, Nick


Dalyell, Tam
Redmond, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Deakins, Eric
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dormand, Jack
Rooker, J. W.


Dubs, Alfred
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Eadie, Alex
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eastham, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Snape, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Soley, Clive


Foster, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Foulkes, George
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Strang, Gavin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


George, Bruce
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Tinn, James


Godman, Dr Norman
Torney, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wainwright, R.


Gourlay, Harry
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Winnick, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Ray Powell and


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Mr. Mark Fisher.


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords' amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 2

SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE AFTER EXERCISE OF RIGHT TO BUY

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 6, leave out "service charges" and insert—
—(a) service charges, or
(b) improvement contributions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 16, 19 to 23, 54, 169A, 169B, 170 to 177, 187 and 204 to 207.

Mr. John Fraser: There is a problem with forecasting service charges and the landlord, be it a local authority or a housing association, finding that, because of an absolutely genuine change of circumstances, it cannot get back the money that it has spent on service charges because the amount spent exceeds the estimate given when the right to buy was exercised.
In Committee, the Minister gave an undertaking that he would consider the plight of smaller local authorities and housing associations which may have no reserves with which to deal with such an unanticipated and unavoidable strain on its funds. What will the Minister do as a result of the undertakings that he gave in Committee?

Mr. Tracey: As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will know, the provisions contained in new paragraphs 16C of schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1985 were criticised in Committee on the ground that a minority of leaseholders in a block of flats might either block the carrying out of improvements which were highly desirable, or have the benefit of the improvements without having to pay anything for them.
The amendments delete the provisions which were criticised and put in their place provisions modelled on the limitations which clause 2 imposes on service charges for repairs in the early years of the lease. The effect of the new provisions is that a tenant who claims to exercise the right to buy a flat will have to be given an estimate of any contributions to be required under the lease in respect of improvement costs incurred during, broadly speaking, the first five years of the lease. Those estimates will then set a limit to the contributions which can be recovered, except that there will be an inflation allowance. There will thus be a common regime for improvement contributions and for contributions to repair costs. In both cases, the landlord will be free to seek whatever contributions may properly be required of the leaseholder under the lease, but during the first five years the leaseholder will not have to make any payments of which notice was not given before the sale.
I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I hope that the House agrees that we are trying to strike a fair balance between the interests of the leaseholder and those of the landlord and other occupants of the block. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the type of housing association which cannot cover all of its costs when carrying out repairs because of problems with service charges. I am still sounding out what we can do to help in these rather special circumstances and what provisions we can make to that end.
We have to establish a common regime and a common balance between the interests of the leaseholder and the interests of the landlord. We are trying to do that. That is why we ask the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: With the leave of the House, may I say that that was a lot of rubbish and waffle. It had


nothing whatever to do with fairness and balance. If it had, the same regime would apply to the private landlord. It is absolutely untrue to speak of fairness and balance.
A private landlord would be able under schedule 19 of the Housing Act 1980 to recover moneys that were fairly expended on maintaining and servicing property. What happens if a landlord gives a reasonable estimate of what expenditure is to be during the next five years and something utterly unexpected happens? There may, for example, be an extremely severe winter which damages the fabric of the building. The landlord quite reasonably has to recover the money involved from the tenant. Especially for small housing associations, there may be no other source of funds. What will happen in those circumstances?
Although large local authorities may have the funds necessary to met such unexpected expenditure, it is quite unfair for the housing revenue account and other tenants to have to bear the expense. As I said before, calling that fair and reasonable is rubbish and waffle.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 16 agreed to.

New Clause

CONSULTATION BEFORE DISPOSAL TO PRIVATE SECTOR LANDLORD

Lords amendment: No. 17, before clause 4, insert the following new clause—
. —(1) In Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 (secure tenancies and rights of secure tenants), after section 106 insert—
106A.—(1) The provisions of Schedule 3A have effect with respect to the duties of—

(a) a local authority proposing to dispose of dwelling-houses subject to secure tenancies, and
(b) the Secretary of State in considering whether to give his consent to such a disposal,

to have regard to the views of tenants liable as a result of the disposal to cease to be secure tenants.
(2) In relation to a disposal to which that Schedule applies, the provisions of that Schedule apply in place of the provisions of section 105 (consultation on matters of housing management).".
(2) After Schedule 3 to the Housing Act 1985 insert as Schedule 3A the Schedule set out in Schedule (Consultation before disposal to private sector landlord) to this Act (consultation before disposal to private sector landlord).
(3) The amendments made by this section apply to disposals after the commencement of this section.

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can take Lords amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and the amendment thereto, No. 169 and the amendment thereto and No. 201A

Mr. Patten: It will be useful to have a debate on this important issue. We have here a daunting group of amendments which honour an undertaking that I gave in Committee and which give council tenants a statutory right to be consulted about proposals which would transfer ownership or management of their homes—not their dwelling units—to another body.
I shall concentrate on amendments Nos. 17, 169 and 27 as they contain the main changes on the subject. Amendments Nos. 17 and 169 insert the new section 106A and the new schedule 3A into the Housing Act 1985. Those are important pieces of detail.
One of my local newspapers had my handwriting analysed recently by a professional graphologist. It was an independent assessment. The graphologist was not told who or what I was, and said that the writer had no grasp of detail, preferred the broad brush approach and was probably an actor or a Member of Parliament. I now feel that I must read out the detailed matters with some determination so that the excellent Courier newspaper series realises that there was a small mistake in the graphologist's otherwise excellent analysis of my handwriting. It was my best handwriting as well—that is what I found so irritating.
6.30 pm
The effect of these amendments is to give council tenants a statutory right to be consulted about proposals to sell their homes to a private landlord. They provide that the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to a disposal if he is satisfied that a majority of the tenants are opposed to it.
Amendment No. 27, which inserts a new section 27A into the 1985 Act, makes similar provision in relation to proposals to delegate the management of tenanted council dwellings to another body. These are lengthy amendments because it is necessary to spell out in some detail—and I was pressed hard in Committee about this — how the consultation arrangements are to work. This is done in new schedule 3A and new section 27A. These provisions place specific duties on the councils to consult their tenants —duties that councils will not be able to evade or skimp as the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that councils comply with them in full.
The amendments will require local authorities to consult tenants fully and to take their views into account before making an application to the Secretary of State. Tenants will have to be told of any significant changes made to the scheme after they have been consulted, including any modifications made to meet their objections.
The tenants will then have a further period of at least 28 days in which to lodge any remaining objections directly with the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State concludes as a result of this consultation that the majority of tenants are opposed to the proposal, he will not be able to give consent and the scheme will not proceed. Before considering any application for his consent, the Secretary of State will be concerned to see that there were no shortcomings in the way in which the consultation was carried out. If necessary, he will have the power to require the council to carry out further consultations.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is seeking to delete paragraph (6) of new schedule 3A and subsection 27A(7) which are contained in this group of amendments, I must stress that the Secretary of State will be an effective long stop in seeing that the consultations are complied with properly.
These provisions provide that a transfer of ownership or management to a private body which takes place with the Secretary of State's prior consent cannot be declared void because of any failure on his part or that of the relevant council to comply with the new consultation provisions. These provisions are essential, as without such a guarantee—and it is well precedented—it is unlikely that any private body would be willing to enter into such a transaction which some time thereafter might be


overturnable strictly in law because of some minor technical flaw — for example, in the dissemination of papers.
However, this protection for private bodies where transactions have taken place in good faith with the Secretary of State's prior consent does not mean that councils will be able to ignore the new statutory requirements to consult their tenants, and, as I have stressed, the Secretary of State will himself ensure that this is done properly in every case. Furthermore, it will still be open to tenants who feel aggrieved to take their grievance to the courts for redress.
As for precedents, similar provisions are to be found, for example, in section 17 of the New Towns Act 1981, section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972 and, somewhat surprisingly, in section 23(1) of the infamous Community Land Act 1975. I remember that Act as the cause of my first ever political campaign in my constituency, and we all wore stickers declaring, "Stop the land grab". That was our reaction to the Community Land Act 1975. Given the circumstances of this well-precedented power, I hope that, following my assurances, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will not feel it necessary to press his amendments.
The provisions that have come from another place will put on a statutory footing the general principles which it has already been Government policy to apply throughout by administrative means. On no occasion has consent been given in any way other than entirely in conformity with the general principles to which I am referring. We are simply putting into law what we have already been doing because people have been concerned. I wanted to react to that concern, and I did so in Committee.
There has been a lot of debate in the other place about the need for ballots and public inquiries. These are possible means of consultation in particular cases — Thamesmead, for example, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), then on the Front Bench, played such a formidable part to bring about change.
But not all disposals will be of that kind. They will vary. There could be a ballot or a public inquiry, but these could be quite inappropriate in cases involving one, two, three or four tenanted properties. The tenants must always be given full details in writing, and I pledge that they will get that. They can object to the proposals simply by writing to the Secretary of State. In other instances, the council itself might well wish to hold meetings with the tenants affected to clarify its proposals and, for example, to provide a questionnaire on which tenants could give a number of opinions. In my view, the requirement for a particular form of consultation in all places at all times is a bit inflexible.
We shall be looking very closely at the reaction of councils whose tenants seek opportunities to begin to manage their own affairs. I shall be looking closely at the attitudes of councils towards approaches by prospective co-operatives, management co-operatives and so on, in the ever changing tapestry of new forms of housing tenure, particularly in our cities.
These amendments give us what the House wants and certainly what the Committee wanted — a basic requirement for consultation by the local authority with provision for the Secretary of State to ask for further consultation where he considers it necessary in the form

he considers it necessary. The Secretary of State can insist on proper consultation, but he can be flexible about how it is carried out. I think that that is the right approach.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for going out of his way to explain some of the points involved. He referred to groups of tenants going to the local authority. I may have misunderstood, but I believe that that relates to another clause in the Bill — clause 7, which was inserted in Committee. We are now discussing the operation of old clauses 4 and 6 relating to disposal of ownership and sub-contracting of management. I would not want to confuse the two issues. The other is a new right for tenants to demand and seek co-operatives and to get a response from the local authority.
We are grateful for the amendments. That is absolutely clear because they arose from pressure on the Government in Committee. The Minister wrote to me as long ago as 23 April to say that it was not possible to put the amendments in the Bill on Report. There was a good reason for that — the Bill was railroaded and bulldozed through the House. Following consideration in Committee, it came back on Report within a week or a fortnight. Then, for no reason that I have been able to discover, it spent three months in the other place, although nothing happened between April and July.
When the Minister wrote to me on 23 April saying that there would be proposals for consultation for tenants, he listed some of the principles to be used. He went on to say:
You will see that this arrangement will give tenants an effective right of veto where the majority are opposed to a disposal of tenanted property or to a management agreement.
I put that sentence on the record during the Report stage. It is an important point. Nobody says that the same system has to be used throughout the country; there are many ways in which it can be implemented.
Subsection (5) of Lords amendment No. 27 says:
The Secretary of State shall not give his approval if it appears to him that a majority of the tenants of the houses to which the agreement relates do not wish the proposal to proceed".
The Secretary of State must find out about that. It would not be acceptable to have a show of hands at a public meeting. As long as a detailed proposal is put to the tenants and fully explained to them, I cannot see what is wrong with a ballot.
One of the Minister's civil servants, an assistant secretary, Jenny Williams, attended a seminar—

Mr. John Patten: She is a talented person.

Mr. Rooker: I have no doubt that she is talented. That seminar was held at the Housing Centre Trust in April this year and her speech was reported in the July-August edition of Housing Review. However, I read the article only today. Now I know why I am getting so much "stick", because of the way in which my name has been used to excuse certain Government policies. In discussing aspects of the Government's policy, she said:
Ministers have promised to consider making statutory provision for tenants to be consulted individually on such proposals".
That refers to the proposals to sub-contract management and dispose of sites.
I hope that tenants will be consulted individually by means of a ballot. I do not assume that it will be consultation a la Langbaurgh. A system of individual counselling would be unacceptable as a means of obtaining


a decision. After the proposals have been discussed and the details examined, I do not see why a ballot of the tenants cannot take place. In the other place, the Government spokesman repeated again and again that a majority of the tenants would have to be in favour and that it would have to be clearly shown that they were in favour of the proposal. On 7 October, the Minister used the phrase
It really is a veto by tenants."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 October 1986; Vol. 144, c. 199.]
"Veto" is an extremely powerful word. Everybody understands what it means, One need only look at Northern Ireland, with which the Minister is more familiar than I. The people of Northern Ireland understand what that word means. It means that something can be stopped. Tenants must know that they have a collective right, by majority vote, to challenge anything with which they do not agree.

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman is aware that an example of a major housing development leaving the public sector in recent years is Thamesmead, most of which is in my constituency. In that case, there was a clear vote by everyone concerned. During the campaign, all points of view were expressed. At the end of it, everybody who was living in the development had an opportunity to vote for the kind of future that they wanted for the area. Is not that the kind of model at which we should be looking?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, it is. I understand that the tenants of the former Cantrell Farm at Knowsley voted on that disposal and that a ballot showed that about 1,000 to six were in favour of the change.
Doubts have been raised, though not by me. I understand what is meant by a veto and I am prepared to accept the Minister's letter on that point. I am also prepared to accept the spirit of the amendment. It represents a substantial advance on the Bill's original proposals. It is not for me to defend the Government's Bill, but I flatly refuse to tell lies about it, although other people have told lies. The Minister must make it absolutely clear that it is a veto, as I understand the meaning of that word and as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and every other reasonable person understands it. On that basis, we welcome the amendments.
6.45 pm
The Minister said that the wording of paragraph 7 was taken from a precedent littered throughout our legislation, but I presume that it relates only to procedural mistakes and not if a local authority deliberately misled the Secretary of State, causing him to believe that requirements had been met when that was not the case. This system must not be fudged. Deliberate deception must not be allowed to carry the day. Paragraph 7 is drafted in extremely wide terms. If there is a precedent for it in other legislation, there is obviously a reason for it, but I should like the Minister to confirm that those words have indeed been used in previous legislation.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Many misleading statements have been made about the Housing and Planning Bill. That is the only point that was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) with which I agree.
A leaflet issued by the Campaign Against Sales of Estates says:

If the Housing and Planning Bill becomes law, it will mean no security, no consultation, no right to stay in your home, tenants could be evicted and their estates sold … no right of appeal if tenants don't agree with the plans to sell their estates. … selling estates means fewer homes.
I am in favour of all three amendments, so to me that leaflet, entitled
Government Monopoly: A Game of Chance for Council Tenants",
is completely unhelpful. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has done to give powers to tenants, it is a disgrace that the leaflet was allowed to be circulated. It was certainly audacious to address the questionnaire to "Mr. John Patten" and to give his address as the House of Commons, despite the fact that the Minister for Housing and Construction is at the Department of the Environment, Marsham street, London SW1.
There have also been headlines in The Leicester Mercury such as
Give us a veto over house sales
and
Sales veto claim is misleading.
Another heading is
Tenant has right to be consulted
and
Tenants will not be thrown out of homes".
There has been great concern in Leicester. A few days ago, the direct labour organisation put an "info" leaflet through people's doors saying:
Councils pressed to sell off housing estates. Leicester on hit list … What's Leicester City Council's policy? Leicester City Council is totally against the Bill.
This Bill will do a great deal to help my constituents, in particular Mr. Bill Cooper and the Charnwood Tenants Association, who feel bitterly let down by a council that does not want the estates to be improved.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 169 demonstrate that despite what Leicester city council says the new power will not depend upon the whim of the Secretary of State. The authority will first have to seek his approval and he will have to take certain factors into account before making his decision. In other words, there will be proper consultation before there is any exercise of the right to sell. Account will have to be taken of the effect of the scheme on the extent and character of the housing accommodation in the area and the extent to which the scheme provides for housing to be offered for sale or rent. Most important of all, there will have to be proper consultation with the existing tenants, and people living there will have an absolute say about their future.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that there had been lies about the Bill. The council in Leicester had said that there would be no consultation and that the Secretary of State would be able to act without consulting tenants. If approval is given, it will be only after the most careful consideration. There is a power to require further consultation in paragraph 4 of the new schedule, Lords amendment No. 169. My right hon. Friend's consent will be withheld if the majority of tenants are opposed to disposal. No consent will be forthcoming unless it appears to the Secretary of State that the majority of tenants in the dwellings to which the application relates wish the disposal to proceed. That is quite clear. Council tenants will be secure tenants and if the majority do not want their housing estate to be sold, that will be the end of the matter, so my constituents in Leicester, East will be OK.
It will be incumbent on councils to consult, as is only right. Leicester city council is opposed to any privatisation


and to any private funds coming into the city. That is a tragedy, because the only way to improve the housing stock is in partnership with the private sector. The Liecester Tenants Federation, which comprises 36 tenants' organisations and is led by Mr. Don Connolly, says clearly that the veto that tenants need must be spelt out clearly. The federation says:
We do not know of any tenants who want their homes sold".
The federation is not properly representing my constituents in council property because some of those tenants would like their homes to be sold. If the majority agree, we shall have a sale. Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Minister has made clear, those houses cannot be sold.
It is important to note that each tenant will be individually informed. I wish that Conservative Members would stress that fact and nail the lies that are being put about. It is clear from the Bill that notice in writing will be given. It is also clear that a tenant will have 28 days to send any objection to the Secretary of State. Those are clear reasons for supporting the amendments, which will ensure that tenants who want proper consultation have the final say. The Minister has made it clear in a helpful letter to me that there is no possibility of an immediate handover of a council estate to a private developer. The veto exists and the management and ownership of an estate can be delegated or transferred only with the approval of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Rooker: May I query the hon. Gentleman's choice of words? As I understand it—if I am wrong, I have been wrong since day one—nothing in the Bill requires a local authority to dispose of its estates.

Mr. Bruinvells: That is correct.

Mr. Rooker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me because he was giving the impression that local authorities might be forced to dispose of estates. That is not the case.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am delighted to confirm that. I know that many of my constituents would like to have their houses sold to private landlords, but that will not be possible unless the majority agree and even then the council's authority will be required. As I said earlier, Leicester city council has already said that it opposes the Bill and I assume that it will not support the measure when it becomes law. All that I seek is the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister has already given, which is that there will be much more consultation with tenants and that if they choose to have their properties sold their homes will be properly maintained and additional resources will be brought in. If they do not choose, their right to consultation and a veto will be there from day one.
These are good amendments. Ministers should be congratulated on taking up some of the amendments that were suggested in Committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill become law, because it will ensure that all tenants in Leicester, East and elsewhere, are given proper rights, can live in decent, properly managed property and are given free consultation, with tenants' and residents' associations being in the forefront in helping to maintain a decent quality of life on each estate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I also welcome the Government amendents, which have been produced as a result of the pressure exerted by Opposition Members in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and Labour Members argued from the start that is was necessary to have proper consultation.
The Government amendments were published on 26 September and I should say to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that, although I have never seen or heard of the document that he quoted, if it was published before 26 September it is fair to note that at that time there was no statutory provision for consultation. Up to that time, worries that there would be no adequate consultation were sufficiently well founded for people to campaign for such consultation.
The reason for my two probing amendments was to examine subsection (7) of new section 27A and paragraph 6 of the proposed new schedule. The Minister said that those provisions were precedented and a letter from his Department to Lady David set out the precedents.
However, are not the proposed provisions unnecessarily cautious? If there were legal arguments, it might be suggested that if there had been defects in any of the procedures, including the consultation, there would be no going back on the decision. I understand that unscrambling legal eggs, transferring management of estates and so on, is extremely complex, but I have a number of questions for the Minister and we must have answers if the proper anxieties about whether the reference to "veto" means that there really will be a veto are to be allayed. These are not unfounded anxieties. Shelter has taken counsel's advice, which is that the Government's proposals would allow the veto to be watered down.
Is it correct that consent could be given if a local authority had wittingly or unwittingly misled the Secretary of State about the reasons for the failure to comply or if there had been some neglect—not necessarily culpable—within the Department, either by Ministers or officials? It is suggested that any tenant's challenge to the Secretary of State's decision to give consent would not make any disposal void by invalidating the consent, whatever the basis of the challenge and however serious the substance of the argument.
Is it correct that there will be no other remedy open to a tenant if something has gone wrong? He will not be able to get damages for a wrong, negligent or technically deficient decision and would have suffered the loss of a secure tenancy or a change of management against his wish. That might be important if there had been a close vote, perhaps 51 to 49.
Have the Minister and his officials examined alternative wording to make it expressly clear that the Secretary of State will be concerned only about technical rather than substantial deficiencies in the procedure? The legal advice to Shelter suggested that wording such as
a failure ‖ to comply with such requirements as were unnecessary in all the circumstances to be complied with",
followed by a specific list of technical deficiencies, would be clearer.
7 pm
Perhaps the Minister's officials will be able to advise him whether there are differences with the precedents. I accept that the formula has been used before because I have come across it before during my three and a half years as a Member, which seems all too short a period. Section 17 of the New Towns Act 1982 has more limited scope because it does not affect people specifically. As it is


related to the disposal of land, it affects them only indirectly. The Minister will remember that the Community Land Act 1975 is also about disposals of land. However, it includes an alternative remedy, that of prosecution and fine, in the event of a technical breach. Under the Local Government Act 1972, no secure tenants were affected.
My last question is whether the Minister accepts that all of the precedents for the formula were introduced in different circumstances and do not affect directly the rights of secure tenants to make it better or appropriate now to accept the amendments that I have brought before the House, or at least to think again about the drafting of the measure.
I am prepared to take the Minister's word on these matters. I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, but I am aware of the debates in Committee and the pressure which was put on the Minister. I have read also the reports of the debates in another place. If the Government accept the consultation process, and accept also, to use the words of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Leicester, East, that veto means veto, we cannot have a clause that suggests that veto does not mean veto.
I ask for the Minister's considered response to my argument. There is legal opinion and professional opinion that at present the veto is not secure. The Minister must be clear on this issue because many people outside this place are worried about the security of the Government's policy on a matter of great importance to many who are presently council tenants. I refer to the future disposal of management of their estates.

Mr. John Patten: I must respond to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who made a telling contribution, and by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). To take up the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I have read twice what I regard as the key phrase in my speech which is: "If the Secretary of State concludes as a result of this consultation that the majority of tenants are opposed to the proposal, he will not be able to give consent, and the scheme will not proceed." I do not want to get into Gertrude Steinish stuff about a veto is a veto is a veto, but I cannot be any clearer in spelling out that which is contained in that part of my speech.
I have been reminded by a note which has been placed in front of me—which after due graphological analysis I divine to have been written by the same Mrs. Williams to whom the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred—that tenants will be consulted individually in writing. I hope that that writing will be slightly clearer than Mrs. Williams's. The note continues:
See 27(1)(a) etc. as predicted at the seminar.
That means that the Secretary of State will have all the information that she or he needs to determine whether the majority of tenants are opposed to the scheme. If the majority object, the scheme cannot go ahead. I do not think that I can be any clearer than that. I am putting the matter in different ways so that there is a choice of words which can be plucked from my speeches and used, I hope, in the publicity material delivered by the direct labour

organisation, at huge expense to ratepayers in Leicester, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. I want to see one of the little red leaflets go through every door. I trust that they will state, first, what I have said this afternoon, followed by an apology for unnecessarily frightening or scaring tenants about their prospects in my hon. Friend's constituency and, secondly, draw to the attention of tenants the fact that in another part of the Bill tenants in Leicester, East, as I know my hon. Friend wants, will have a full opportunity to form up to Leicester city council, that amazingly interesting body, and tell it that they wish to have the opportunity to manage their own affairs.
That is what the Bill does; that is the opportunity that the Bill provides for tenants; and I note that thus far Leicester city council has suppressed at every turn that information. If the council wants to give me the space in its little pamphlet, I shall happily write free of charge within a very short time an explanatory article on the new rights that tenants will have as well as the protection which the hon. Member for Perry Barr and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East want tenants to have in future. Incidentally, I have a lot of money on my hon. Friend retaining his seat at the next general election, including a number of side bets.
I have tried to explain that the provisions that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey seeks to amend provide that the transfer of ownership or management to a private body that takes place with the Secretary of State's prior consent cannot be declared void because of any failure on his part. In reaching that decision, we took into account many of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In this Bill we must seek to be free and fair in our attitude to all parties, and we must make sure that all the parties understand their obligations. I refer to the council, the tenants and any third party that is involved. We have picked the words as drafted extremely carefully and, following the care with which the provisions are drafted, I cannot imagine any tenant finding herself or himself in the position to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Secondly, we have considered the wording extremely carefully and we believe that it is clear. It is aimed only at technical difficulties of the sort that I mentioned in my introductory remarks.
I have given every undertaking that I possibly can both in Committee and on the Floor of the House this evening. I hope that the Bill will proceed unamended.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amemdments Nos. 18 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 5

REDEVELOPMENT OF DWELLING-HOUSE SUBJECT TO SECURE TENANCY

Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

Clause 6

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 7

PROPOSALS FOR CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT OR OWNERSHIP

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 8

EXTENSION OF ASSURED TENANCIES SCHEME TO CASES WHERE WORKS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT

Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 24, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

"Certification of fitness for purposes of s. 56B

56C. —(1) An approved body having an interest in a dwelling-house which it proposes to let on an assured tenancy may—

(a) apply in writing to the local housing authority for a certificate that the dwelling-house is fit for human habitation, or
(b) submit to the local housing authority a list of works which it proposes to carry out to the dwelling-house with a request in writing for the authority's opinion whether the dwelling-house would, after the execution of the works, be fit for human habitation; and the authority shall as soon as may be after receiving the application or request, and upon payment of such reasonable fee, as they may determine, take the matter into consideration.

(2) If the authority are of opinion that the dwelling-house is fit for human habitation, they shall give the approved body a certificate to that effect.
(3) If the authority are of opinion that the dwelling-house will be fit for human habitation after the execution of the proposed works, they shall inform the approved body that they are of that opinion.
(4) In any other case, the authority shall give the approved body a list of the works which in their opinion are required to make the dwelling-house fit for human habitation.
(5) Where the authority have responded in accordance with subsection (3) or (4) and the works in question have been executed to their satisfaction, they shall, if the approved body applies in writing, and upon payment of such reasonable fee as the authority may determine, give the body a certificate that the dwelling-house is fit for human habitation.
(6) For the purpose of determining whether the condition in section 56B(1)(b) was satisfied in any case (fitness of dwelling-house on relevant date), but not for any other purpose, a certificate given under this section is conclusive evidence that the dwelling-house was fit for human habitation on the date on which the certificate was given.
(7) In this section 'the local housing authority' has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.

Fitness for human habitation
56D. In determining for any of the purposes of section 56B or 56C whether a dwelling-house is, or would be, fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters—

repair,
stability,
freedom from damp
internal arrangement,
natural lighting, ventilation,
water supply,
drainage and sanitary conveniences,
facilities for the preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water;

and the dwelling-house shall be deemed to be unfit only if it is, or would he, so far defective in one or more of those matters as to be not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.".
(3) In section 57 of the Housing Act 1980 (effect of interest of landlord ceasing to belong to approved body), in subsections (1) and (2) for "section 56(3)(a)" substitute "section 56(1)(b)".

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 39.

Mr. Rooker: The phrase "fit for human habitation"

appears throughout the new clauses. I understand that there is no change in the fitness standards as enumerated in 56D. Does "fit for human habitation" mean the same

Mr. John Patten: Good heavens, I am searching for words here. We have not altered the standard—that is absolutely correct. However, I must elaborate on this point because it is extremely important and I may have to return to it for some little time.
We have not altered the standard. When our proposals to extend the assured tenancy scheme were first introduced in Committee, the standard chosen was the fitness standard to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred. I believe that my memory serves me right and that it is contained in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. The Opposition did not object to that then, as far as I can recall from the debates. Although the standard is now stated in great detail in the Bill, it remains, effectively, the same as the standard which appeared before us in Committee.
Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 refers to fitness for human habitation as:
repair, stability, freedom from damp, internal arrangement, natural lighting, ventilation, water supply, drainage and sanitary conveniences, facilities for the preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water.
That relates only to the fitness standard, which is not the same as "in good repair". We intend to deal with the important issue of good repair, after due consultation with local authorities, by the application of a prescribed amount. We have consulted about the proposition; on that the prescribed amount should be £5,000 in London and £4,000 in the rest of England and Wales. I emphasise that that consultation is an extremely important exercise, which will lead to tests of fitness and also to places being in good repair before they are let under the approved tenancy scheme. I have already written to the hon. Member for Perry Barr explaining why we propose those levels and the basis on which we have decided to consult.
I should reiterate—and the words are beginning to come back to me now—that there is no objective test of fitness for human habitation. In the Housing Act 1985, we tried to be as objective as possible. Nor is there an objective test for what is "good repair". There is an element of subjectivity. We tried to achieve a reasonable level through the application of the prescribed amounts, on which I intend to consult.

Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not the place to discuss the Minister's consultation on prescribed amounts, although I repeat what I said in Committee, that the Minister has set these amounts at too low a level. Explicit in the assured tenancy scheme is the fact that the landlord is out to get the market rent.
My hon. Friends and I have discussed what is "fit for human habitation". It is about the lowest of the low. A house fit for human habitation may lack basic amenities; it is still fit without hot or cold water. It still meets the fitness standards—crazy though that may seem. It would be difficult for landlords to obtain a market rent under assured tenancies if they operated at the lowest possible level.
I ask only whether there is a difference between "fitness for human habitation" and "in good repair". The difference is the wrong way. Landlords participating


within the scheme—which has the Opposition's support with the caveats which I established in Committee—had better beware of that.

Mr. Patten: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tossing me a challenge to try to describe the difference between "fit for human habitation" and "in good repair". He should be reassured by two things. First, no landlord could let tenancies successfully under the assured tenancy scheme with the rentals he would seek to attract if the property was unfit for human habitation and/or not in good repair. Secondly, before any landlord was able to let such property, he would have to seek registration from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If at any stage it was clear that he was not providing accommodation of a suitable standard, that registration could be withdrawn. Registration is debatable in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 39 agreed to.

New Clause

HOUSING THE HOMELESS

Lords amendment: No. 40, before clause 10, insert the following new clause—
. — (1) The Housing Act 1985 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) In section 58 (definition of homelessness) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(2A) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(2B) Regard may be had, in determining whether it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the district of the local housing authority to whom he has applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation.".

(3) For section 69(1) (provisions supplementary to ss. 63, 65 and 68) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(1) A local housing authority may perform any duty under section 65 or 68 (duties to persons found to be homeless) to secure that accommodation becomes available for the occupation of a person—

(a) by making available suitable accommodation held by them under Part II (provision of housing) or any enactment, or
(b) by securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person, or
(c) by giving him such advice and assistance as will secure that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person, and in determining whether accommodation is suitable they shall have regard to Part IX (slum clearance), X (overcrowding) and XI (houses in multiple occupation) of this Act."."

Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I have been a member of the board of Shelter for the past four years, although I stress that, should anyone be in doubt, I have not had a pecuniary interest. That interest allows me some insight into aspects of housing problems.
The law at present defines someone as homeless if he does not have accommodation. If someone is homeless and fulfils certain other conditions, the local authority has a duty to secure accommodation for that person. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 says nothing about the standards or appropriateness of accommodation. The code of guidance issued by the Secretary of State to guide the local authorities in their interpretation of the law makes it clear that the accommodation to be secured for homeless people should be permanent housing of a decent standard.
Until the so-called Pulhoffer judgment, a succession of legal cases favoured reading "reasonable" or "appropriate" with "accommodation" in both the intial definition of homelessness and the definition of the local authority's duty to the homeless. The major thrust of the law was clearly that Parliament was determined that families in real and genuine housing need should be helped by their local authority.
In February of this year, the House of Lords judgment in Regina v. London Borough of Hillingdon—Ex parte Pulhoffer considerably changed the interpretation that had previously been placed upon that responsibility. In the Pulhoffer case it was decided that as the legislation did not include the words "reasonable" or "appropriate", they should not be read into it. Accommodation could be statutorily overcrowded, unfit or entirely unsuitable for some other reason, but it did not thereby cease to be accommodation. Lord Brightman said that there were no rules.
We are in a Diogenes barrel. As an erstwhile judge decided, a veritable pigsty would have counted as relevant, proper and reasonable accommodation.
Shelter and other housing groups were very concerned about that, and their concern increased when evidence started to come in that several local authorities—I must be fair and say that it was not the overwhelming majority—were apparently changing their policies to give effect to the judgment and thus reducing the opportunity for people in bad housing conditions to be properly rehoused.
Together with hon. Members from all parties, I tabled an early-day motion drawing attention to this matter, and currently it has 76 signatures. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford), the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and I visited the former Under-Secretary in July and expressed our concern about the matter.
Last week in another place, their Lordships saw fit, against the Government's advice, to carry an amendment drafted by Shelter. I do not wish to go into enormous detail about the amendment as it would be unfair to the House to do so. Subsections (2) and (3) tackle, in each case, the two areas which most concern us about the effects of the original Pulhoffer judgment.
It is important to stress that the amendment can in no way extend the rights of homeless persons. It simply restores the position to what it was before the judgment in the House of Lords. The housing pronouncements of my hon. Friend the Minister are attracting great interest. He may have been advised that last week I even expressed a word of congratulation during Prime Minister's Question Time. I congratulate him on the steps he is taking.
I emphasise that the ability of local authorities to meet these responsibilities, particularly in areas of high housing stress, is dependent upon some change in the


Government's attitude to investment in housing. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments in that respect, particularly about the necessity to do something about the phasing out of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families. I look forward to his proposals in two weeks' time in that respect. Above all, I urge acceptance of the amendment and trust that the Government will accept it.

Mr. John Fraser: The amendment is a Labour victory. I do not wish to detract from anything said by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). I am glad that he spoke in favour of the amendment which was passed in another place. Until a few days ago, the Government resisted this amendment. Their spokesman in the other place described it as premature. I am glad that, at a late stage, they had the grace to accept it. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch. The measure returns the law to what we always thought it was. First, a person is homeless if he or she lives in outrageously unsatisfactory accommodation. Secondly, a local authority will have a duty under the homeless persons legislation to provide homeless persons with not only, literally, a roof over their heads but reasonable accommodation in which they will be reasonably secure. Therefore, we welcome the late acceptance of what has been called the Pulhoffer amendment. The amendment will be passed now that it has the Government's support.
We must recognise that the homelessness problem is the rotten, inhumane consequence of the Government's housing policy. It is not a mere accident from which the Government can divorce themselves. It is the result of the Government's repressive attitude towards local authority housing construction and rented housing. The words "crisis" and "catastrophe" are often over-used but I do not think that they are over-used when applied to the problem of homelessness in the United Kingdom, particularly in London. Figures published only this morning by the Association of London Authorities gave some idea of present and future homelessness in the capital. The Association of London Authorities comprises only 16 of the 32 London boroughs, so the figures that I shall give are a gross underestimate of the extent of homelessness in the capital.
In March 1986, 3,558 homeless families had to be supplied with bed and breakfast accommodation. By August 1986, the number had increased to 4,742. The Association of London Authorities forecasts that by March 1988 the total number of homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation will reach 9,138 in the 50 per cent. of boroughs that it represents. The association predicts that the number will increase by a further third by March 1989. Some 12,637 homeless families will be in bed and breakfast accommodation at enormous expense to the ratepayer and divorced from any kind of permanent attachment to their homes. That is a disgraceful figure. If it is projected to the whole of London, it would not be unreasonable to estimate that in 1989 20,000 families will be in bed and breakfast accommodation. If one includes single homeless people living rough or in grossly unsatisfactory accommodation, there could be about 40,000 units without any kind of permanent shelter in our capital city. That could be nothing but a disgrace and a reflection on the Government's housing policy.
The bed and breakfast homeless are only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, the homeless figure is only the tip of the

iceberg. The number of people accepted as being homeless rose from 50,000 a year in 1979 to 100,000 a year at present, and even that is an underestimate of the grave housing need in this country. We must not only look to the redefinition of the legal duties of local authorities but recognise the full extent of homelessness, especially bed and breakfast homelessness.
Last Monday, I talked to the new leader of Lambeth borough council, Councillor Linda Bellos, who told me that the cost of providing bed and breakfast accommodation for 362 families in Lambeth alone—my borough—is sufficient to underwrite the building of 1,000 new homes a year. Homelessness, especially bed and breakfast homelessness, affects ethnic minorities very harshly. I am sometimes told off for using the expression "ethnic minorities". I am told that "black" is the right word to use in some places. Ninety per cent. of the homeless in bed and breakfast accommodation are black or of Asian extraction.
More resources must be allocated to housing. At Prime Minister's Question Time last week, the Prime Minister boasted that the Government had built one million homes since she came to office. She went so far as to say that that was the largest number of homes ever built in an equal period. If that is what she meant to say, it is what Londoners would call a pork pie. If she had continued building at the rate which prevailed under the Labour Government, at least 1·5 million homes would have been built since 1979. There must be a restoration of Labour's housing resources.
The Government have to drive home to some local authorities the seriousness with which they must take their housing responsibilities to the homeless. It is not insignificant that the name of the case that we are debating is Pulhoffer v. London borough of Hillingdon, a borough which seems to believe that one should draw a cordon—I am not sure whether it is a cordon sanitaire or a cordon doctrinaire — around the pools of homelessness in London. At present—I have checked this—Hillingdon borough council is a hung council. When it was controlled by the Conservative party, it held the homeless and its housing responsibilities in such contempt that it did not even bother to send homelessness statistics, house building statistics or any other kind of housing statistics to the Department of the Environment. The Minister does not know what is going on in Hillingdon because the borough council is not prepared to provide him with information.
I am sorry to talk so much about London, but I do so because we were provided with some London figures this morning. We must treat London and the other conurbations as single strategic areas in which to deal with the problems of housing and homelessness. One cannot simply divide the capital city or other large urban areas into segments in which some local authorities discard their housing responsibilities altogether while others such as Lambeth, Southwark and Birmingham take their responsibilities seriously.
7.30 pm
I hope that as a consequence of the reversal of the decision in Pulhoffer v. London borough of Hillingdon the Minister will look carefully at the operation of policies in boroughs such as Hillingdon and elsewhere, where local authorities neglect their responsibilities to the most vulnerable in the housing market. I hope not only that there will be a change or a re-clarification in the law, but


that more resources will be devoted to housing. I hope that there will be a purge by the Department of the Environment on local authorities that callously disregard their housing responsibilities, and that the Minister will take that seriously.
As I go around the country I come across housing authorities, some of which ace quite small, which have never before known the problem of putting homeless families into bed and breakfast accommodation. Gravesham is one of those councils. Medway is another, where the local council demolished 400 homes, blowing them up in a sort of celebration of doctrinaire anti-housing ideology. Many local authorities, which have never before known the problem, are now having to place homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation. The Government's policy is coming home to roost. We should regard the amendment not just as a clarification of the law, but as a challenge to reallocate resources to badly needed homes.

Mr. Cartwright: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment carried in another place. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that it will not solve the problems of homelessness. Every day of our lives those of us who represent inner London constituencies are made all too aware of the problem.
I should like to deal with the concluding point of the hon. Member for Norwood. The London borough of Greenwich, in which I live and which I represent, has always been a rather strange London borough in that it has never been a housing stress area. Therefore, in the past we have never had the problems of bed and breakfast accommodation, and we have not had a major problem with homelessness. However, we have that problem today, and about 40 per cent. of all the vacant property in the borough goes to homeless families. If we add the problems of the break-up of relationships and the need to decant for major renovations in local authority housing, we find that virtually no families are being housed and taken off the waiting lists because of the overriding priority that must be given to genuinely homeless families. That means that our waiting list continues to be about 15,000. It also means that we must face the problem of people having absolutely no hope of being housed by the local authority. For example, there are about 200 cases of husbands and wives living apart. They can no longer look forward to the priority that they had in easier times, when they could be virtually guaranteed local authority housing. There are no longer any hard-to-let properties because the depth of the housing problem means that they are taken by people in serious need.
As other hon. Members have said, the figures are bad enough on the basis of those accepted under the legislation as being genuinely homeless. The young single homeless are a non-priority group who in the past. have been regarded as a central London problem—young people attracted by the bright lights to the centre of the city. It is no longer only a central London problem. It is an unusual Friday evening if I do not see at my advice service a young person who is utterly homeless, moving around from one

friend's home to another, sleeping on the floors of relatives' homes, sometimes sleeping in cars and sometimes sleeping rough.
Sometimes young people are homeless because they have fallen out with their families. The lifestyles simply do not gel and the parents have to face an awful choice—they cannot have the kid in the family because it is causing so much trouble, but they know that if they put the kid out he or she will be homeless. That is an awful decision for a parent to have to take, but I meet it all too often in my constituency. Sometimes a young person is homeless because the family has simply moved away, having decided to go back to the West Country, to the north or to Ireland or to retire away from London. That leaves 18, 19 or 20-year-olds high and dry because all their friends and their jobs are in London and they have nowhere to live. It is almost impossible to overemphasise the problem of homelessness now afflicting areas that never had difficulties in the past.
Another problem about homelessness is the lack of choice that we are forced to present to homeless families. The "one offer" situation is a heaven sent opportunity for a local authority to get rid of property at which other people turn up their noses because of its condition or its location, and it is no longer confined within one borough boundary. I am finding increasingly that homeless families are rehoused in my constituency and in my borough, miles away from their home towns—for example, people from Croydon who have no connection with my constituency. They have no friends, relations or other contacts in my constituency but because the London borough of Croydon says, "There is only one offer—we can get you housed in Greenwich and if you do not go there we shall have nothing more to do with you", they are forced to accept housing in an area that is entirely alien to them. That causes all sorts of difficulties for social and family life.

Mr. Tony Favell: A dilemma faces a housing authority as to whether it encourages—and in certain cases it does encourage — the break-up of a family by making it too easy for children to leave their parents, wives to leave their husbands or husbands to leave their wives. How many cases has the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) come across where the boy, the wife or the husband has been genuinely without a home?

Mr. Cartwright: I have come across far too many cases where those people genuinely have nowhere to go. If the hon. Gentleman is saying to me that it is not self-evident that break-up of relationship cases, as they are called in the trade — where husbands and wives part company, or where people who are living together in some sort of relationship part company — should have priority over people on the ordinary waiting list, I have much sympathy with that point of view.
However, that was not really the point that I was making. I was talking about the difficulties of young people in particular who are left high and dry with nowhere to live. I was making a point about young married couples starting out in life who have nowhere to live, other than a home with one lot of parents or the other. That is a dreadful way to try to start married life in 1986; having to make occasional visits to be able to sleep with each other is a singularly unpleasant way in which to begin married life. Unfortunately, that is what is happening in inner London at the moment.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to take notice of that sort of situation. I join the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who paid tribute to the new thinking that we have already seen from the Minister since he took on his present office. Many of his ideas are worth all-party consideration, if not support. I hope that he comes to terms with the extent of the problem of homelessness in our great cities, especially in inner London, because it is one of the most important social problems now facing us.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for his concluding remarks. Tonight is not the night, and I suspect you would not allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a full-blown debate on homelessness in all its aspects. I shall not seek to make a major speech of some length on the matter, and I see Mr. Deputy Speaker nodding firmly as I say that.
I take on board the comments of the hon. Members for Woolwich and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), and also the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who moved acceptance of the amendment. I am grateful to him for that. In any debate on homelessness we have to recognise that other things have happened in this country since 1979 besides there having been a Conservative Government since then. Major changes have taken place in our social structure. Far more people are asking for divorces. I understand that there were 179,000 in 1985, which is a huge increase on, say, 10 years before. There is considerable all-party support for trying to do something more, if we can, to fill empty homes, whether owned publicly or privately. We could all do much on that matter. We need to do something to make sure that Hillingdon gives us statistics. I shall turn my attention to that.
When the hon. Member for Norwood spoke, I thought that he was speaking about a Labour-controlled council because councils change hands, and I believe that Hillingdon has changed hands recently. I take as my source a report that I read in The Independent, so it must be accurate and true, that about two Thursdays ago the Labour chairman of housing announced the opening of a new housing development near London airport, and said that there should be far more mixed tenure estates. Many of us on both sides of the House could have written those words. I forget whether the chairman was announcing plans or opening the development, but he said that he did not want to see any more monolithic council estates, but he wanted multi-tenure estates.
On that basis, when I approach Hillingdon, rather than a delinquent Tory authority — Heaven forfend! — I should be approaching an authority under Labour or alliance control. However, I shall look into what the hon. Member for Norwood said. I shall do all that I can to bring about what he wants if he, as a quid pro quo, offers to approach, with me, the London borough of Camden, which refuses, persistently and continually, to return the statistics that we ask for. I know that I can look for support on that.

Mr. John Fraser: If people do not make returns of business statistics, many of them are prosecuted. I have no hesitation in saying that there should be an absolute duty on local authorities to supply the information that is essential for us to make policy decisions, irrespective of political control.

Mr. Patten: We are at one on that.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said about the amendment, and I congratulate him on the way in which he spoke to it. I recognise the strength of feeling that there has been on the matter. That is why we are prepared to accept the amendment, but I do so with the proviso that we shall continue our monitoring exercises of the effects of the judgment on local authorities, through our postal survey of all authorities' practices in operating the Act. Likewise, we have an invitation outstanding to all voluntary bodies to submit to us any further evidence that they consider appropriate from their contacts in the housing advice network. At the end of the day, we shall consider the results in relation to how the amendment works in practice. We shall not hesitate to return to the House with proposals for further amendments to those parts of the Act if that seems appropriate. However, we are content to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

HOUSING MANAGEMENT GRANTS

Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 46 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause

MATTERS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING FAIR RENT

Lords amendment No. 47 agreed to.

New Clause

FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASES

Lords amendment: No. 48, after clause 11, insert
The provisions of Schedule (Further provisions with respect to shared ownership leases) have effect to exclude certain shared ownership leases from the operation of the provisions of—

(a) the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, and
(b) Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (right of long leaseholder to enfranchisement or extension of lease)."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 186.

Mr. John Fraser: Amendment No. 48 and the associated schedule take shared ownership leases out of the protection of the Rent Act. As I understand it, they have never had the protection of the Rent Act, so the provision is declaratory to help building societies that have doubts about whether they are affected by the Act. A private landlord cannot grant a shared ownership lease, effectively because of the operation of the Rent Act. Such leases can be granted only where the landlord could create a secure tenancy, but shared ownership leases are defined in the Housing Act 1985 as not being secure tenancies. I should like to make one query. I cannot find any reference to the determination of the major rent element under a shared ownership tenancy, under fair rent procedures. I understand that with local authorities the rental element


under the shared ownership lease is determined by the local authority. That is not right, because it is far too open to abuse. Be that as it may, it has to be comparable with other rents charged by the local authority, so there is a standard of comparison.
I cannot find any reference to the fair rent being determined for a shared ownership housing association shared ownership lease. It is important to have the assurance that the tenant can look to that arrangement for two reasons — first, so that the tenant under a shared ownership lease is not overcharged the rent element and, secondly, so that there is an element in the rent on which the tenant can apply for housing benefit. Normally the rental element under the lease is eligible for housing benefit, if, for instance, the tenant has a low income or becomes unemployed. Will the Minister give me an assurance on that?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I underline and endorse the valid request that has been made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
I do not know whether the Minister can give answers immediately, but there appears to be a form of tenure that falls outside the protection that I should have thought he would accept people need so that they know that they have security of financial planning if they go into what for many of them will be a new form of shared ownership. We welcome the form of ownership, but there does not seem to be the ring fencing in the protection that they would otherwise get in rent control.

Mr. John Patten: I hope that what I shall say will reassure the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Neither the Rent Act nor the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was drafted with the possibility of shared ownership in mind. Shared ownership was not around when they were drafted. To a certain extent, that is that. The protection and the rights that those Acts confer on tenants are, for the most part, not relevant or not appropriate to shared owners. The hon. Member for Norwood, with his legal expertise on housing issues, will appreciate that, I am sure.
The measures that we have introduced in the Bill were explicitly welcomed by the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Housing Corporation. Indeed, I was subject to heavy lobbying by those bodies. They regard the moves that we are making as necessary. They will enable housing associations to expand their shared ownership activities by offering privately financed schemes in addition to publicly subsidised schemes.
Under the Bill, the shared owner has to be offered a long lease with a minimum 99-year term, so he or she does not need Rent Act security, nor is the Rent Act necessary to ensure that shared ownership rents are kept under effective control. Let me explain. With a shared ownership lease, the shared owner will know from the outset what his or her rent will be and how it will be reviewed because it will have to be set out in the lease that the prospective tenant has to decide whether to sign. There has been the closest consultation with the Housing Corporation, which wants the changes to be made so that they have more money for their activities.
Furthermore, those offering shared ownership will have every incentive to keep the rent as low as possible to make

the overall cost competitive with outright owner occupation; otherwise there is no point in the building society and housing association involved going into the business at all. Unless they keep the rent low, no one will be remotely interested in shared ownership. People would be mad to go into it; they would be better to buy outright. Therefore, all the commercial pressures, even though they are within a carefully constrained and generally institutional framework with building societies and housing associations, are to keep the rents as low as possible.
With the recent availability of funding from the building societies on index-linked terms — it is those terms which will make the schemes go—the cost to the shared owner of the rented share will be low at the start and should not be much higher than it would be under a fair rent. However, it will not necessarily be exactly the same as the fair rent. Therefore, there is an inbuilt safeguard on rents, and our proposals contain other safeguards to protect the position of shared owners. It is only future shared owners who will be excluded from the Rent Acts in that way. It will be only those who decide that they cannot afford or do not wish to buy but wish to take advantage of the scheme operated by a housing association with building society finance because that suits their circumstances. Existing shared owners who have the right to have a fair rent registered will retain that right. I give that pledge to the House. Furthermore, the lease must be granted by housing associations, which are non-profit-making organisations. I am not sure what else we can do to guarantee the position of tenants because the inbuilt drive must be for the housing association, investing institutions and others to keep the rented portion at the lowest possible level; otherwise they will not be in business.

Mr. John Fraser: People want to know the criteria that will have to be followed for increasing the initial rent. If it is to be removed from the control of the rent officer, who will control it?

Mr. Patten: The timing of the rent reviews will be set out in the lease, which will be for 99 years. This is a new hybrid form of mixed tenure occupation, part-owned, part-rented. All the way through, it must be incumbent on the lending institutions and housing associations involved, which are non-profit making, to keep the rent down to a reasonable level.
Finally, there is a safeguard that the leases will have to comply with prescribed conditions which define precisely the sort of shared ownership arrangements which will be permitted to operate outside the present legislative controls. Senores priores.

Mr. Fraser: We are told that there will be regular rent reviews in the lease. However, we want to know the formula by which the rent will be increased. We understand the formula at the moment because the rent is fixed by the rent officer. However, if the rent to be paid under the shared ownership lease is linked to an index-linked mortage from a building society, that may provide the formula. The point about Rent Act protection for tenants is that in a situation of desperate housing shortage people sometimes sign documents which they may afterwards judge to be unwise. It is for the House to intervene and protect people. That is why we want to know what the formula will be.

Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It is important to get this clear. I thought that I had made it clear in Committee. I apologise for not doing so. Index linking provides a formula, and the concept of shared ownership provides an in-built safeguard because no one would wish to put the rents up to more than a reasonable level. Otherwise shared ownership would not take off. The biggest safeguard is provided by the housing associations which will be operating the schemes. I cannot imagine a housing association wishing to let anyone into a shared ownership scheme, funded from whatever source, whom they thought did not fully understand what he was doing. We are dealing with someone who is not a tenant, but only partly a tenant. We are dealing with someone who has decided to go into a scheme involving part-ownership and part-tenancy. I think that we are chasing a red herring.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept the points made by the Minister about the automatic control mechanisms within that sector. He knows that I and my colleagues welcome the expansion of shared ownership. We have argued for that for many years. It would be helpful, so that we can see how things develop, if, within the Department and its requests to local authorities, backed up by enforcement if necessary, we do the same sort of monitoring as the Minister wants in relation to homelessness. In that way we will be able to see the pace of growth, the proportion of rent increases and other variables as they develop and as the sector grows. It will be a new development for many people, and it is important that the House and the Government watch it carefully so that we can learn from experience.

Mr. Patten: I do not think that I can give any assurances other than that we will monitor what we do with the housing association movement. The House exists, as the hon. Member for Norwood was implying, to ensure that the undreamable does not turn out to be true. However, I cannot imagine how a combination of the Abbey National and North housing would wish, under any circumstances, to affect adversely the tenants in the rented part of shared ownership schemes. I hope that the House will accept my assurances.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

EXTENSION OF PERMITTED OBJECTS OF REGISTERED HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 49, after clause 11, insert the following new clause—
. In section 4 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (eligibility for registration), in subsection (3) (permissible additional purposes or objects of association), after paragraph (d) insert—
(dd) providing services of any description for owners or occupiers of houses in arranging or carrying out works of maintenance, repair or improvement, or encouraging or facilitating the carrying out of such works;".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider amendments (a) and (b) to the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 8, after "houses" to insert "or land on which houses are constructed".
I welcome the amendment to housing association powers introduced in the other place because many housing associations undertake other activities. They not only develop and build homes but often assist daughter associations, or, in a less sexist way, issue associations with other housing schemes. For instance, there are many charitable housing associations which are not permitted by their rules to undertake what are called improvement for sale schemes funded by the Housing Corporation and some of the banks. Therefore, they have to form a non-charitable housing association to undertake that work.
However, in practice, the charity provides many of the services to the non-charitable housing association. That is quite right, although they have to go through some convoluted exercises in order to provide their services. Instead of providing services directly, they often have to enter into staff-sharing agreements so that the charitable housing association can assist the non-charitable. In other cases a housing association, whether charitable or not, may want to provide services to the owners of property which by present rules it may not be permitted to do.
We welcome the fact that the amendment widens the powers of housing associations. However, there are two limitations to which my amendments refer. Although the Government are permitting housing associations to provide services to the owners of other houses, there are many circumstances where a housing association assists a developer who is not yet the owner of the house. It may be that one association with a great body of expertise, some architectural staff and a good deal of experience helps a smaller housing association to develop land. I should like the powers of housing associations to he extended to what seems to be a sensible ambit of their activity.
The second problem is the extent to which a charitable housing association is able to undertake non-charitable work for other people. For example, a charitable housing association has an associate non-charitable association which does improvement-for-sale work. The other association is not a house owner but may be the owner of a site. I want the charity to be able to provide services as long as the provision of those services is subsidiary to the charitable objectives of the charitable housing association and to its benefit.
I know that the Housing Corporation had to issue a long circular recently advising housing associations about what they may or may not do. To my mind, a further minor amendment to the law would make life much simpler and allow housing associations, charitable and non-charitable, to continue with the sort of work that enables them to fill gaps in their flow of work and to provide work for their staff. I hope that the Government will further expand the activities of such organisations without subverting the main objectives.

8 pm

Mr. Tracey: I do not think that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I am not sure whether his amendments are intended to be probing amendents or whether he expects satisfaction. The new clause extends the category of permissible objectives for registered housing associations to include agency services or services designed to provide home owners or occupiers with practical help or encouragement with their home improvements or repairs.
At present, housing associations are able to provide such services only by setting up separately constituted bodies, which is both restrictive and expensive. The measure will facilitate the provision of improvement and repair services to owners and occupiers and give effect to an undertaking in last year's Green Paper on home improvement policy. Individual housing associations will have to decide whether to offer such services and how to finance them.
The Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations were consulted about the Lords amendment and are content with it. The hon. Member for Norwood attempts to push further. The amendment has attracted wide support from the voluntary sector and was welcomed by all sides when it was introduced in another place.
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment would put a question mark over the main amendment. Someone who owned land on which a house had yet to be built would not normally wish to do maintenance, repair or improvement work. It is difficult to understand how the suggestion would work.
Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 49 is intended to enable charitable housing associations to provide agency services. If a housing association is a registered charity, there is no restriction on its authority to render services to the public in accordance with its charitable objective. It would, therefore, be free to provide agency services. If the hon. Gentleman wants to push further, I am afraid that we cannot satisfy him. However, we take note of what he says. Lords amendment No. 49 is needed and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.

Question, That the Lords amendment be made, put and agreed to.

New Clause

DISPOSAL OF DWELLINGS IN NEW TOWNS.

Lords amendment: No. 50, insert the following new clause

".—(1) Part III of the New Towns Act 1981 (transfer of new town housing to district councils) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 57 insert—

Savings for other powers of disposal

57A. The provisions of this Part as to the transfer of dwellings in a new town to a district council shall not be construed as restricting—

(a) the power of the Commission under section 36 above,
(b) the power of a development corporation under section 64 below, or
(c) the power of the Development Board for Rural Wales under section 4 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976,

to dispose of such dwellings to any person.".

(3) The following provisions (which relate to the initiation of consultations with a view to the transfer of new town housing to a district council) are repealed—

section 43(3) and (4),
section 49(b) and (c)."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 5, after '57A', insert, `subject to the provisions of 57B below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b), (c) and (d) thereto.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments deal with the disposal of housing held by the new town corporations, the Housing Corporation or the Development Board for Rural Wales. At present, if there is a disposal of such housing from the new town to a local authority, consultation takes place. However, the proposed Lords amendment allows disposal to other than local councils. This is not a matter of principle but the Lords amendment allows disposal to a housing association or to a private owner. The disposal could be of a single property, a couple of properties or all the properties on an estate.
The amendments to the Lords amendment cover the same issue. We suggest that there must be consultation about the disposal of properties by new towns, as there is in relation to disposals of properties by other authorities. My amendment provides for consultation and for a majority vote by those whose properties are to be disposed of.
Some local authorities which cover the new towns—for example, Milton Keynes, Basildon and Telford—have planned their housing provision on the basis that they will receive housing transfers from a new town corporation. They believe that it is right and fair, both for them as prospective inheritors of the housing stock and for the tenants of the new town corporation, for a consultation procedure to be set out.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that the words in my amendment were drafted by his Department. The words fit the circumstances, but they come from amendments discussed in another place in relation to consultation elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will not, therefore, object in principle to the words or the drafting. I hope that he will not object to the principle involved. If people have been public sector tenants, although of a different type from those who have held local authority tenancies, they should be fully consulted about every scheme that might result in the disposal of their property's freehold.
The new town authorities which are to be wound up will want to dispose of estates, parts of them, or individual dwellings, to a range of different authorities, so different consultation procedures will be necessary. However, it cannot be beyond the wit of authorities to work out ways of ensuring that consultation works properly. I press upon the Minister the importance of consultation when it is proposed that tenants' landlords be changed. That consultation process should be the same as has been accepted in other contexts. The tenants should be consulted and the decision should be made by a majority. I hope that the amendments that I have tabled, or others to the same effect, will be accepted by the Minister in one form or another. Many people are affected, and are anxious to have a say in their future.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: The Wrekin includes Telford, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I support and welcome Lords amendment No. 50 as being


a move in the right direction. However, I am unable to support the Labour or Liberal amendments, which go further than is necessary.
My constituents will be greatly affected by what is decided. In my constituency there is a housing stock of 10,000 houses which are currently owned by Telford development corporation. If all those houses were to go to the Wrekin district council, its stock would be doubled, and it could not cope with the houses it would receive. I receive many complaints about how the district council maintains its houses and about the repair services that it offers to my constituents. I receive much more favourable comments from the tenants involved in the Telford development corporation.
It is undesirable that any large holding should be built up in one area. Wrekin district council's housing stock would be doubled if it received the extra houses. The greater the choice, the better. I and many of my constituents look forward to the Government giving tenants a choice of housing associations, housing cooperatives, housing trusts or the district council following the demise of the development corporation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the tenants should be consulted. From my discussions with the Department I gained the impression that such consultation would take place. We may disagree about whether the results of that consultation should be binding on the Government, but I hope that consultation will take place, and that the Minister will listen. The Labour amendment suggests that there will be one solution. But I hope that there will be a variety of solutions. Some estates may decide to go to housing associations, housing co-operatives or trusts.
If consultation takes place and an estate decides that it wishes to remain with the council while another decides that it wants to go with a housing corporation or housing association, I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon those decisions. But until that consultation has taken place, it would be wrong of the Government to give any such commitment. That is not the only matter which must be taken into consideration when making a final decision.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with three questions of a local nature affecting the Telford area. When will consultation take place? I know that consultation with the corporation and the district council was planned. It was held, possibly to allow this amendment to be passed. But I hope that the Minister can give some idea of when Telford's consultative procedure with the tenants will take place. What safeguards are there—the local government legislation that has already been passed may come into this—to ensure that the Wrekin district council does not spend much taxpayers' or ratepayers' money in running a campaign to try to push the view that it wants as many houses as it can obtain? Discussion with tenants should be balanced. I am nervous, because only last week the district council had a half-page advertisement in the Shropshire Star about bussing and deregulation, suggesting that the Government were at fault. It can still get away with that. The district council seems to get away with using public money to advertise a political point. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that no public money will be used for a campaign by the Wrekin district council to try to grab the available housing stock.
Who will decide how the consultation should be worded? We all know that the way in which a public opinion poll is worded is very relevant.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman clearly has an important constituency interest. The questions in my longer amendment are meant to allay just those anxieties. Are they the type of questions that should be answered? They come from the Department's draft elsewhere in the Bill, and I believe that they should be part of the consultation. Perhaps the formula could at least be adopted, even if the amendment is not.

Mr. Hawksley: I hope that there will be a fair representation of the case. If a housing association, housing co-operative, a trust or the district council could be an option, the wording of the questions should be approved by the Secretary of State, and it should he in a brief form that gives the tenants all the information that they need. They must have certain information. I accept that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) may be right to be more specific about that, but I have confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister that the question will he asked correctly. I am asking my hon. Friend for an assurance that that will happen. I hope that it will happen, because it is important that it should.
I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure the tenants of Telford development corporation that they have the option of being kept out of the clutches—as they see it — of the rather Left-wing Wrekin district council. The majority of them do not want a relationship with the district council—

Mr. Rooker: Left wing?

Mr. Hawksley: I accept that it is all comparative but there are four members of the Militant Tendency on the Wrekin district council who were suspended by the local Labour party. They were kicked out of the Labour party. They appealed to the national executive committee, and were reinstated. They could be landlords for my constituents, who are at the moment tenants of Telford development corporation. They are worried about coming under such Left-wing control. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure my constituents that they will get a fair deal from the legislation.

Mr. Rooker: I jest with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), but at least the people of The Wrekin will have the satisfaction of knowing that Bruce Grocott will be their Member of Parliament after the next election.
I heard the hon. Gentleman dismiss my amendments and those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I could not quite follow his argument. I do not understand how he could disagree with amendment (c), because all it does is to accept everything in the Government's amendment. It states:
chosen by a secret ballot of tenants, and such ballot to include the option of the local authority, if the authority so desires.
Some authorities are not interested in receiving more houses. I am the last person in the world to force more housing on to local authorities. Consequently, I do not understand why the hon. Member for The Wrekin should dismiss the amendments, especially as the tenor of his speech seemed to support them.
It is important for us to pause at this point, because we have new material which was not mooted when the Bill first went through the House. However, the Minister gave me notice on the last day of July that some changes in this direction would be made in the other place. Local authorities have three main anxieties about this legislation, in the sense that they feel that they have already made plans and are in the process of taking over the ownership of the stock.
I must make it clear at the outset that the Labour party believes that the tenants should decide, not the local authority or the development corporation. We do not disagree with the reversal of the proposals in the new towns legislation. The Labour party will give local authority tenants the right to take over the management of their housing. It naturally follows that where a development corporation is being wound down, it makes no sense to transfer without question to the local authority when we would then give the tenants the chance to transfer out. The object is to give the choice at the time of the transfer. The tenants must decide.
That said, Milton Keynes and The Wrekin are important, because at present the local authority is managing the new town development corporation housing, but it is doing so with seconded staff.

Mr. Hawksley: The Telford development corporation is still in existence, and we hope that the transfer of the housing stock to another owner will take place before the demise of the corporation.

Mr. Rooker: I am sorry, I did not say that. The management of the development corporation stock is carried out by the council on an agency basis. It does not own it and it has not been transferred. The same applies to Milton Keynes.
The case that I want to highlight—I have given the Minister notice of this—is Peterborough. Peterborough is in a different position from The Wrekin and Milton Keynes. The difficulty with Peterborough is that it is not only managing the housing stock on behalf of the new town corporation, but it is doing so with its own staff. It has an agreement, voluntarily entered into, with the housing corporation that it will be taking over. I understand that there is a date, probably towards the end of next year, when the transition will be completed.
I have had some brief discussions with the director of housing in Peterborough, and I have a note saying that its management agency arrangement is not simply to manage dwellings, but to integrate the management practices and procedures and to assimilate all housing staff into a new city council housing department. The staff are not seconded; they are city council employees. There is a single housing management account for both authorities. I did not originally take that point on board. Therefore, the Peterborough situation is different from the others.
I make it clear that I have never been to Peterborough, but I have looked at its policy statement of objectives. There are many of them, but they contain the sentence:
The council will not provide housing that councillors and officers would not happily live in themselves.
It is the first time that I have seen such a statement, and I should like to see that enshrined in every local authority's policy objectives. I might add that I would also include the architects and builders. Looking at its statement of

objectives and the way that it operates, I do not think that Peterborough would give us cause for concern on this matter.
Nevertheless, the tenants should decide, as I have told the director of housing at Peterborough. The tenants must be asked where they want to go at the time of the changeover. The fact is that Peterborough is different. I ask the Minister to address his mind to that, so that the new town development corporation there does not feel under any obligation, as a result of the changes in the Bill, to tear up its voluntary agreements and go to the private sector or somewhere else because it is not interested in the local authority. If ever there was a case for accepting amendment (c) to give the local authority a chance to put its case to the tenants, it has to be Peterborough simply because of its interaction with staff and the accounts.
I stand to be corrected on the matter of the Telford development corporation — its Member of Parliament will clearly know more than I do — but I have read somewhere that management practices are carried out on an agency basis. If that is wrong, I withdraw it completely. I confess straight away that I have not been briefed by The Wrekin.
However, what I do have—not from The Wrekin but from a bundle of papers that must have been sent from the other place—is the result of a MORI poll to which the hon. Member for The Wrekin did not refer. I am as sceptical as anybody else about opinion polls, but this relates specifically to the matter that we are discussing and to housing. Therefore, some points must be put on record.
Two polls were conducted by MORI in July and August 1986 using a random sample of 1,109 council tenants and a random sample of 309 development corporation tenants. They were asked what they felt about their housing. In an independent poll of the new town tenants of Telford, 65 per cent. said that they would prefer their homes to be taken over by the council as part of a planned wind-up of the new town corporation. The second most popular choice was a housing association, which was favoured by 10 per cent. If those 10 per cent. want a housing association, that should be an option. They do not have to be dealt with in one block, as the hon. Gentleman said. Fourteen per cent. were unable to give an answer.
If that is a proper poll, conducted by a professional polling organisation, one cannot ignore the fact that 65 per cent. is a substantial vote in favour of the local authority, although, in the final analysis, it should be put to the test by a vote of everybody.
MORI also commissioned a poll of existing Wrekin council tenants. That showed that 71 per cent. thought the council did its best with the money available — more than in other parts of the country where MORI surveys have been conducted—for example, Harlow 60 per cent. and Birmingham 47 per cent. The majority of tenants were satisfied with the council's repairs and maintenance services. That shows a relatively high degree of satisfaction. However, that does not mean that I would propose treating the tenants of the new town like chattels and dumping them on the local authority without giving them a say. That would be unacceptable and not consistent with Labour party policy. It is not what we are proposing here tonight. We are proposing that there should be genuine consultation and that the local authorities should not be squeezed out.
Central Lancashire is different. There the local authority did not want to know, and that is fine. That gave the Government another way of looking at disposals. They had to because the local authority did not want to know.
Local authorities may or may not be the best landlords for particular groups of new town tenants, but it should be for the tenants to decide. It would be wrong if, as a result of the amendments, the local authority was deliberately excluded from the choice. I have criticised large-scale public landlordism as much as anybody else, and I shall continue to do so because of the bureaucracy and remoteness that brings about. At the same time, as the tenants foot the bill through their rents, they should make the decision. The Government should bear in mind, because it is not clear from the amendments, first, today's debate—the hon. Member for The Wrekin has made similar points to my own and those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey — and, secondly, that perhaps the other place should have a chance to look at the matter again. This is a probing amendment but we wish to hear something positive from the Minister about the tenants having a choice and some say in the disposal and the ownership of their homes.

Mr. David Amess: I shall be brief because I shall raise the matter tomorrow on the Adjournment.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned MORI opinion polls, and I note what he said about the position of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley). We have had the same sort of nonsense in Basildon. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention the sums that are spent on conducting these polls and all the brainwashing in the build-up before them. Until last Thursday what was happening in Basildon was disgraceful. Last Thursday, Basildon became a hung council, so the chairman now has a casting vote. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have visited Basildon during the past year, and they will note with interest that the present chairman was the chairman of the housing committee when they visited Basildon.
8.30 pm
We have 16,000 new town commission properties which are under discussion. It was disgraceful how, until last Thursday, the local authority tried to frighten elderly people, for example, by saying that if the properties were handed over to a housing association, the housing association would not be prepared to repair them.
None of us should be concerned about the political posturing of the local authority. As the Member of Parliament for Basildon, in view of our many problems, I am concerned about who will best manage our public sector property.

Mr. John Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and would add only that we must put the tenants' voice foremost. I entirely deplore the goings-on inside Basildon council and the attempts needlessly to frighten public sector housing tenants about their prospects. To say that X or Y would lead to repairs not being done is absurd, damaging and foolish. I condemn that utterly and hope that the council, under its new hung leadership — I do not approve of hung councils, but one changes one's mind from time to time — will have more common sense and that the people of Basildon will get what they want.
I greatly appreciated the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) to our amendment, and I thank him for it. He asked some specific questions and I shall try to answer them as best I can. Consultation will take place as soon as the responsible Minister has considered the form of the alternative solutions being worked out and has taken the decisions. I must reveal to the House that after recent ministerial changes the responsible Minister is me. I intend to write myself a short, sharp minute immediately I leave the Chamber, instructing myself to get on with the job of coming up with the alternatives as quickly as possible so that consultations can take place and uncertainty can be cleared up as quickly as possible.
How the questions are to be worded and who decides is something on which the Department is working. We shall work on the wording and agree the form before consultation takes place. I assure my hon. Friend that I take to heart his points about all sides of the case being made. It is critical that all sides have their voice heard, including the local authority. However, we hope that it will not exceed its normal activity in campaigning with the use of ratepayers' money. I have always thought of The Wrekin as rather a peaceful sort of place and the idea of its being stalked by Militants is a new and terrifying thought. I must tell Wrekin council that, where party politics are heavily subsidised by ratepayers, things go wrong. That happened in Thamesmead where political campaigning rebounded. People listened carefully to what was said on all sides, made up their minds and voted for the housing trust solution.
Amendment No. 50 introduces a new section into the New Towns Act 1981 and makes some repeals in that Act. It clarifies the position on the transfer of new town dwellings to bodies other than local authorities. On 25 March 1986 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, announced that the Government were prepared to consider proposals from the new town corporations for the transfer of that housing to bodies other than local authorities. We wish to ensure that there is a choice between a local authority and a non-local authority for the remaining new town housing and that that choice is not restricted by any provisions in the legislation concerning transfer to local authorities. The amendments prevent any such restriction and leave the new town bodies free to consider the disposal of new town dwellings to any person. That does not rule out the mixed solutions to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred. When one is dealing with 10,000 homes in which more than 20,000 people may be living, it is absurd to suggest that one blanket solution is right.
Some play was made by the Opposition in another place over the use of the word "person". It is being used in the technical, legal sense to mean an individual or a body of persons. I stress that we have not ruled out any particular form of non-part III arrangements for new town housing, such as the transfer to a housing association, or further part III schemes.
The four amendments to amendment No. 50 are in the names of the hon. Members for Perry Barr, for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I cannot commend them to the House but not merely because they are technically imperfect, which is always the problem with drafting amendments. The main


objection is that they persist with a lopsided approach to the issue. Having heard hon. Members' speeches, I am sure that that was not the intent of the amendments.
The amendments as drafted impose a statutory requirement for consultation in general or ballots in particular in cases where the proposal is the transfer of new town houses to a non-council owner. They do not make a comparable provision for cases where the proposal is to transfer housing to the council — [Interruption.] I apologise if I am wrong, and I am sure that that is not the intention.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Clearly the intention of my amendment and, I think, of the amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is that all options should be put by the present landlords to public sector and other tenants, unrestricted in number. Therefore, the conduct of the consultation is in the hands, not of the local authority or anybody in the private sector, but of the present landlords. That is both express and implicit.

Mr. Patten: There is all-party agreement, and I apologise if I have misunderstood the amendments.

Mr. Rooker: I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding. Lords amendment No. 50 refers to the disposal of dwellings to "any person". "Any person" can mean the local authority. The amendment seeks to insert
subject to the agreement of a majority of the tenants being obtained.
I would not be in favour of the matter going to the local authority unless the majority of tenants wanted that. That is clear. The amendment is not intended to be one sided.

Mr. Patten: Because of the use of the word "person", I may have misunderstood the purpose of both amendments and their drafting. The use of the word gave rise to much debate in the other place. I have already apologised for that, but none the less the amendments are technically imperfect and cannot be accepted. If we all agree that freedom of choice for tenants is to be our motif, then for the moment amendment No. 50, which introduces a new section into the New Towns Act 1981, does exactly that.

Mr. Hawksley: The confusion may arise because we do not know whether the Government take the view that the tenant's view should be binding. That is the question that arises.

Mr. Patten: We certainly take the view that we must consult fully with the tenants. Unless a situation arises in which there are a number of potential choices and tenants go off in relatively small groups in different directions, I cannot imagine that we will do anything other than accept the overall view.
I must refer again to the MORI opinion poll. I am sure it was properly taken because MORI is a reputable polling organisation. However, it was taken only on the basis of information that was available earlier this year when tenants did not have a proper set of alternatives in front of them. When the alternatives are properly put and the arguments properly advanced, I am willing to bet that we will find that tenants may well take a different view. On the other hand, they may not, because it may well be that

in a new town area people are fond of the local authority form of management and may wish to stay with it. That is a choice that they can make.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr kindly gave me notice yesterday of the issue he wished to raise about Peterborough. If the new town housing were to be transferred to owners other than the council, I recognise that that might cause problems, especially for the staff. Some council staff could be made redundant and that would be a serious prospect for them. However, there are likely to be other opportunities for such staff with the new owners of the housing. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said in a written answer in March, the views of staff now managing new town housing will be taken into account before final decisions are reached on the future of the housing. That applies not just to Peterborough but to all other new towns.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr was right to raise the matter of agency agreements. It is an important issue and the terms of the agreement for the two councils which manage new towns housing, at Peterborough and Milton Keynes, will have to be reviewed most carefully.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is quite right to say that amendment No. 50 commands widespread support in the House. I think he used the phrase that it leaves the choice to the tenants. I should like him to think about a future procedure which will allow him to use the authority that he has under the new towns legislation and elsewhere for a consultation process to include all the elements that have been voiced in the debate. I think that if it is correctly understood, that would have the consensus of the relative authorities. There might have been a misunderstanding because there was never any intention to create a lopsided bias. If tenants are to have a proper chance to exercise freedom of choice between future options for their landlords, they will benefit from a consultation process along the lines of the amendments proposed.

Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 52 agreed to.

New Clause

DETERMINATION OF PRICE FOR LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 53, insert the following new clause—
.—(1) In section 9(1A) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (determination of price payable for enfranchisement of higher value houses), in paragraph (a) assumptions that vendor is selling subject to existing tenancy) after "no right to acquire the freehold" insert "or an extended lease and, where the tenancy has been extended under this Part of this Act, that the tenancy will terminate on the original term date.".
(2) In section 23(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (provisions as to tenancy granted in satisfaction of tenant's rights under Part I), in paragraph (b) (provisions which apply as if the tenancy were granted by way of extension) at the beginning insert "section 9(1) and (1A) above,".
(3) The above amendments apply where the tenant's notice under section 8 of the Leasehold Reform act 1967 (notice of desire to have the freehold) was given after the passing of this Act, notwithstanding that it was given before the commencement of this section, unless the price has by commencement been determined by agreement or otherwise.

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, as an amendment to Lords amendment No. 53, amendment (a), leave out subsection (3) and insert—
`(3) The above amendments do not apply—

(a) where the price for enfranchisement has been determined, by agreement or otherwise, before the commencement of this section; or
(b) where the notice under section 8 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (notice of desire to have the freehold) was given before the passing of this Act; or
(c) where notice under section 14 of that Act (notice of desire to have extended lease) was given before 5th March 1986.'.

This amendment fulfills the undertaking we gave that the Government would consider further the cut-off date after which the new valuation assumptions should apply to the enfranchisement of houses in the higher value bracket. The new clause was introduced into the Bill by my noble Friend Lord Coleraine and I am grateful to my noble Friend for his interest in the issue and for the advice that he has given me. The amendment provides that extension leases obtained by such leaseholders should be disregarded for the purposes of valuation under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. This dealt with the consequences of the Hickman case, which revealed that long leaseholders in the higher rateable value bracket could obtain significantly advantageous terms for enfranchisement if they first obtained an extension lease. At the time of the Housing and Building Control Bill a couple of years ago it was said that if a case was brought before the courts and the outcome revealed that there was a problem we would consider amending legislation. The amendment of the noble Lord Coleraine gives us that opportunity.
Much anxiety was expressed in the Lords about how to deal with transition cases. We acknowledge that leaseholders whose cases are far advanced ought not to be deprived of the benefit of the Hickman terms. In that context we moved an amendment to subsection (3) at Third Reading in another place which excluded any case where the application for enfranchisement was made after Royal Assent. A handful of leaseholders had applied to extend their leases in the expectation of being able to benefit from the Hickman terms and in advance of the ruling in the Court of Appeal. At least two of these cases are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who is in the Chamber. I pay tribute to his efforts on behalf of his constituents to ensure that such leaseholders are not disadvantaged. I know that our present amendment will deal with such cases by excluding cases from the new valuation terms if the leaseholder applied for an extension as a preliminary to enfranchisement on or before the date of the Court of Appeal ruling.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 53 deals adequately with the problems presented by the Hickman case and I commend this approach to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will know that his colleagues in the other place were pressed by my noble Friend Lord Ezra, who sought a later cut-off date. On behalf of my noble Friend, I am grateful to the Government for this amendment because it fulfills the undertaking that was given in the other place. Some people, including my noble Friend Lord Ezra, think that

it would have been possible for the date not to be 5 March 1986 but the date of the passing of the Act. It would appear that that view is tenable and proper. It was an alternative, but the Government have not accepted it. With the reservation that we would have preferred the date to be in a few days' time rather than a few weeks ago we welcome the amendment and the willingness of the Government to move in our direction.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for moving amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 53, introduced in the other place by Lord Coleraine. It was detected that in its original form the amendment would have retrospective effect. That fact was brought to my attention and it was also raised by a number of eloquent speakers in the other place, who made a convincing case for an amendment to the third subsection of the original amendment. I pay tribute to Lord Skelmersdale and Baroness Hooper, who gave this matter a great deal of their personal attention. They came forward with what is a satisfactory solution for the time being. I am most grateful to them for their work on this rather recondite and certainly difficult issue.
Justice is now being done for people who were being frustrated by long delays in the process of negotiations in pursuit of their statutory rights, which were confirmed by the Hickman judgment. Although my right hon. and hon. Friends have decided that they want to change the basis of the law and accept Lord Coleraine's amendment in principle, there is no doubt that my constituents and several others in similar circumstances were perfectly within the terms of the statute when they initiated their negotiations.
This incident touches on a matter which is fortunately of only limited application in practice, but it raises questions about valuation in the wider context of the purchase of property under the legal provisions enabling leasehold enfranchisement. Here, a means of dealing with a handful of hard cases which would have been created by the original amendment has been found. I welcome amendment (a) and hope that it will be accepted.
However, there are important issues in connection with valuation still remaining to he clarified, to which the House would have to return. I refer to the valuation of mansion blocks and substantial conversions. Amendment (a) also leaves the matter open with regard to the present state of the law affecting the anomalous status of holders of long leases in the highest rateable value properties, many of which are to be found in Kensington.
I hope that my noble Friends and my right hon. and hon. Friends will direct their minds to rectifying the quite unfair discrimination which still prevents a significant number of people from enjoying the benefits of home ownership for no clearly discernible reason. I hope that I shall have other opportunities to raise this matter in the coming Session.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I welcome Lords amendment No. 53 and the Government's amendment (a).
In 1967, when some of us were addressing this problem elsewhere, we felt that the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, while giving a right, left something to be desired in terms of establishing a price. It was firm and clear in one virtue but left ground for disputation in an important part of the transaction—how much should be paid.
We do well in the new clause to return to the problems and considerations of long leaseholders. Most people agree that we should, whenever possible, facilitate the enfranchisement of long leaseholders of dwelling houses and enable them to become freeholders. Consideration for long leaseholders of flats is long overdue. We have the Nugee report, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to proceed with it. He knows that there can be oppression and unfairness when responsibility for management services and the ownership of the freehold reversion are in the same hands and out of reach of leaseholders. I am sure that that will be his advice.
I urge the Government to deal with those problems and hope that, as far as possible, they will feel able to implement the Nugee recommendations. Many of my constituents in Solihull own long leases on flats and would like the Government to consider these matters soon and sympathetically.

Mr. John Fraser: We welcome Government amendment (a), which removes an undesirable aspect of retrospection from Lord Coleraine's amendment. Like many other people — but we did it first — we will be pressing for leasehold enfranchisement for flats in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. John Patten: I wonder whether there will be opportunities in the next Session for these matters to be raised. We will have to wait to see what is in the Queen's Speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is quite right to press me about the importance of doing something about Nugee, which received an all-party welcome in the House. We are intent on doing something about it as soon as possible. We look forward to my hon. Friend's advice. I know that, as my hon. Friend is a lawyer and an expert in local government as well as national government affairs, we shall benefit from his interest, which goes back to 1967. I welcome his support for amendment (a), just as I welcome the generalised support which it received from the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
I am sorry that we cannot be as accommodating of Lord Ezra as we would have liked. It is reasonable that leaseholders who sought to extend their leases many months ago as a prelude to enfranchisement, but who have been unable to complete negotiations, should have the benefit of the Hickman valuation terms. It would not be fair to freeholders, however, if leaseholders who submitted section 14 notices comparatively recently, following the considerable publicity that attended the Court of Appeal judgment on 4 March, should be able to benefit from the anomaly in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
Nevertheless, nobody could be more right than my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) when he said that this is a recondite subject. I have had to go up a fairly steep learning curve on this subject and I regard recondite as an understatement. When and if a Government Bill is brought forward, as we pledged, on the issues raised by Nugee, I do not doubt that my recondite studies will multiply through the night.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 59 agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Clause 13

SIMPLIFIED PLANNING ZONES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords amendment: No. 60, in page 27, line 25, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 35.

Mr. Tracey: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 71, 71A, 72 to 77, 213 and 214.

Mr. Tracey: These amendments are designed to clarify certain points in the drafting of the simplified planning zone provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 63, 66 to 69, 71A and 72 to 77 are more substantive than the others in the group.
An amendment to new section 24B(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, inserted by clause 13, was agreed by the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was of great assistance to the Government when simplified zones were discussed in Committee. He raised the point about any unfinished development being completed, and this amendment requires that any unfinished development should be completed to the local planning authority's satisfaction within 12 months of the SPZ scheme expiring. While we accept that some arrangements are required to reduce the risk that partially completed developments might be left for several years and that extant planning permission might be prone to exploitation, we have looked at the possibility of something more flexible than a fixed period for completion and something which bites on specific developments rather than provision that applies in a blanket fashion.
These amendments, which also apply to Scotland, therefore propose that permissions given by SPZ schemes should be brought into line with ordinary planning permissions. Under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, a local planning authority which is of the opinion that a development that has begun will not be completed within a reasonable period may serve a completion notice specifying a period of not less than 12 months at the end of which the permission will cease to have effect if the development is not completed.
The period of completion will be flexible to fit each case as appropriate, thus allowing the developer a reasonable period in which to complete his project. These are more practical and flexible arrangements than those in the Bill as it stands.
Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 and 70 to 71 ensure that an SPZ scheme cannot be used to impose greater planning restrictions on an area than would normally apply—in particular, for example, nullifying freedoms given by the general development and use classes orders. These amendments ensure also that, conversely, any freedoms given by an SPZ scheme permission cannot be negated by the terms of any other type of planning permission.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 and 72 and 73 clarify the provisions for the coming into effect of alterations to an existing SPZ scheme. They make it clear that an alteration that withdraws or relaxes conditions or extends the


permissions given by an SPZ scheme will take effect immediately if adopted by the local planning authority. However, an alteration that takes away permissions or imposes more restrictive conditions will not come into effect for 12 months.
Amendment No. 61 removes a superfluous reference in clause 13 to national parks authorities which will have no powers in relation to SPZs, and amendments Nos. 213 and 214 correct errors in the numbering of consequential provisions.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, who said that the amendments were designed to clarify the position of simplified planning zones. He will recall that on Second Reading I was concerned about the way in which the Bill was originally drafted in that it seemed to me to leave a giant hole into which planning development without adequate controls could be placed. While the amendments inserted by the Government and the other place go some way towards allaying fears, I am not completely satisfied that they go all that far. However, I thank the Government and the Opposition for agreeing to the changes that have been made.
In Lords amendment No. 62, new section 24AA(1)(b) refers to
consent, agreement or approval of the local planning authority".
Far from the clarification to which my hon. Friend referred, those words cause considerable unrest in Dorset and in my constituency and others like it. Notwithstanding the Bill, as amended, there seems to be some uncertainty about precisely what the Government are trying to do. There are to be simplified planning zones, but there now seems to be a clear conflict between this part of the Bill and current planning circulars which continue to push development where it is not needed — into the prosperous areas of the country — thus depriving rundown areas of the development and investment funds that they so desperately need.
All hon. Members are anxious that there should be more development in the inner cities, and we hope that the simplified planning zones will help to bring that about. However, I do not believe that they will have more than a slightly cosmetic impact on the problem unless and until the Government change their attitudes to planning. The current circulars are pushing development into areas where it is not needed — into prosperous areas — and simultaneously they are forcing environmentally unwanted housing and shopping developments into those prosperous areas where there is neither the need for the investment nor the desire for the development.
The Bill, as amended, should help to reduce the north-south disparity, but the planning laws and circulars as they now stand do not achieve that objective. Many of 'my constituents are perfectly willing to accept a slower rise in living standards if the environment in which they live can be protected.
In the last few days a controversial and, to me, welcome speech was made by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales about housing and planning policies. Lord Northfield a Labour peer, notwithstanding the fact that he is chairman of a company called Consortium Developments — has been extremely rude about the Prince of Wales' speech. He said that His Royal Highness had been
hijacked by the Loony Green Brigade.

If membership of the "Loony Green Brigade" is open to anyone who values the retention of the green fields of England above the profits of members of the House Builders Federation, I should not only be willing to apply for membership of the brigade but I might even be willing to allow my name to go forward to serve as an officer in the brigade.
There is that discrepancy between the current circulars and the object of this part of the Bill. The Government are being urged by not only Government opponents but by Government supporters seriously to look at the circulars that are being sent to local authorities so that the words of amendment No. 62—
requiring the consent, agreement or approval of the local planning authority"—
can mean something in practice. At the moment they are virtually meaningless in my constituency. If the local planning authority should decide that it does not wish developments to take place because they are unpopular and not needed, there have been far too many occasions in the last few years when the Department of the Environment has overturned its planning refusals.
I look forward to the Minister's success in clarifying the amendments. I hope that he will be bold and brave and that in due course he will take the next step and clarify the circulars so that planning law moves in the same direction as the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister go a little further to allay the fears expressed in another place where the Opposition pushed an amendment on this matter to a Division?
Great anxiety was expressed by their Lordships and on behalf of the Council for the Protection of Rural England about issues that were raised in Committee in this House concerning the control of development in a simplified planning zone scheme which is begun, in effect, in name only. Examples were given of developers coming on site in a simplified planning zone, which will not have as many planning restraints as other areas, digging a trench, counting that as the beginning of a development and being able to benefit from the less restrictive planning regime, even though it will have ended before the development is completed.
Amendment No. 63 says:
The provisions of section 44(2) to (6) of this Act … apply to planning permission under a simplified planning zone scheme".
Those provisions provide for the termination of planning permission if the completion of development is unreasonably delayed, but I hope that the Minister will go further and say that he and his colleagues will not condone any abuse of the advantages of simplified planning zones and that there will be monitoring to ensure that there is no abuse.
Developers in simplified planning zones must develop as the Act intends and not abuse their advantages and gain from increased land values. Throughout the south-east there has been a massive escalation in land values and we must provide all possible protection against abuse. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that his Department will not condone abuse but will help local authorities to prevent any abuse.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Like other hon. Members, I regard simplified planning zones as an exciting concept, though it is appropriate for some urban areas and


not for others, most of which are set out as exceptions in new section 24C. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I do not believe that the exceptions go far enough, because agricultural land that is not in a green belt or conservation area would not be excepted, as I should wish.
The amendments are important in planning terms. Amendment No. 62, dealing with conditions and limitations on planning permission, amendment No. 65, which excludes some land from simplified planning zones, and several others are an important step in distinguishing between one part of our environmental heritage and the rest of it. They say that we must have extremely fine equipment to distinguish between the developments that will be allowed in our inner cities and in other areas. That is an important principle which will have to be applied much more widely.
As the Minister knows, there is great worry about overdevelopment in the south of England and some anxiety that the restriction on simplified planning zones is insufficient. My hon. Friend confirmed last week that the Government are not trying to drive forward overdevelopment in the south. I judge the amendments by the extent to which they reflect the guidelines set out by my hon. Friend in his speech last week, and I ask him whether the rules for planning that we have will cater for simplified planning zones and bring them satisfactorily within the rules.
The circular, "Land For Housing", which my hon. Friend the Minister will know well, does not mention SPZs, and one would not expect it to do so, but it makes some distinctions between different types of land. I refer to the circular because it is the main instrument which officials in county councils use as their guidelines for the type of development that they will seek and that they expect the Government will allow. The circular is being used, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and many others divine it to be the root cause of the overdevelopment that we are experiencing. I believe that the circular is out of date and that it will have to be amended to cater for SPZs.
9.15 pm
Secondly, the circular will have to do more to comply with the spirit of the amendments, which I am delighted to see before the House. We must have planning rules which distinguish much more finely in the future than in the past between different types of land — urban land and rural land—and can be applied firmly to back up the distinctions. Those rules must ensure that we do not suffer from the overdevelopment that is now going on in the south of England. In common with others, I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in reply.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I do not wish to detain the House unduly, because in a real sense, as my hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge, I was the instigator of the amendments before us when the Bill was being considered in Committee. I understand fully the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). My reasoning is that the Government's intention is to try to circumvent to an

intelligent and practical degree the necessary long-windedness of planning applications to encourage development, especially in some derelict urban areas. I do not think it is the intention to use the device of simplified planning zones to encourage development in the green field sites, which my hon. Friends have explained so eloquently is a cause of their concern.
If we had tried to define an urban area in Committee, we would have found it difficult to differentiate between that and what could be conceived as a rural area. There are certainly some rural derelict areas where the SPZ concept might be as favourably imposed as in urban areas. Therefore, I have to return to what I believe to be a possible loophole in the provision that we are considering, which I warmly welcome and recommend. Under the 1968 legislation a time limit was imposed on any planning permissions granted by local planning authorities under the town and country planning legislation.
The purpose of the SPZ concept, however, was to circumvent planning requirements in certain areas for a specified period. It was possible that a potential developer might come along with no intention of developing, but seeing an opportunity to obtain planning permission in a different way and so not be held to a time limit in which to execute the permission. As I understood the Bill as it was conceived, it provided that there was no time limit once planning permission was deemed to have been granted under the SPZ concept, and I moved amendments in Committee which were favourably received by my hon. Friend the Minister. In that context, I believe that the Minister and the Government have things exactly right.
Amendment No. 63 meets the wishes, or allays the anxieties, that I have expressed. I can only say to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Dorset, North that I do not believe that their suspicions or worries will be in any way realised when the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Adley: We all listen with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), because there can be few hon. Members who know more about these matters than he. However, I would like to give him one illustration of the reasons for concern. Clause 24C (d) refers to
land identified in the development plan for the district as part of the green belt
There are always arguments between developers and local authorities about what is or is not green belt and whether or not a local authority, having identified an area as green belt before it has been enshrined in statute, is entitled to say that that is green belt as identified in this particular subsection.
I make that point, because my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and I are concerned about this matter. We are worried that in future local authorities might get ideas above their station—if I may put it that way — about an area that they want to see developed around some of the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Adley: I would like my hon. Friend to comment on that last point.

Mr. Chapman: I do not know the geography or environment of my hon. Friend's constituency in the way that I can claim to know my own. There are different interpretations of green belt. I would say that there is no


such thing as established green belt around my hon. Friend's constituency. It is not established green belt as laid down by statute in the same way as the metropolitan green belt is laid down in statute.
The Bill, if enacted,—and I hope that it will be—will in no way prejudice my hon. Friend from making representations to the Minister, or, through his local planning authority, to bring to this House what he believes to be the dispute about the way that the Act is working. I say that with sincerity and a certain amount of logic. In matters relating to town and country planning the House cannot dot every "i" and cross every "t". It is a matter of the way in which planning law is interpreted, not least by local planning authorities. If my hon. Friend felt that this whole issue was being abused by the Government, or by a future Government, he would be in the vanguard and would have a great deal of sympathy and support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I apologise for intervening at such length. I had intended that my remarks should be much shorter. As Back Benchers, we tend to complain when we think that the Government are getting it wrong. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking heed of what was said in Committee. As far as I can judge the issue—and I cannot state that I am right—he has got it just right and that should allay the fears that hon. Members on both sides expressed in Committee.

Mr. Tracey: I thought once or twice this evening that we were having a general planning and housing debate. There is nothing wrong with that in other circumstances. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and I had a similar debate about 10 days ago; it was a fine debate. However, we are discussing simplified planning zones and the Lords amendment to the Bill.
Before I deal with what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Dorset, North, I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was concerned about the monitoring of the way in which the scheme was working out. In the first place, it will be for the local planning authority to monitor any of the abuses to which he rightly drew our attention by way of example. It will then be for the local planning authority to make any completion notice which it thinks fit and to submit it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Every care will be taken when considering such a completion notice. My right hon. Friend will confirm such a notice when he believes that it is right and proper to do so to prevent the kind of abuse that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) in Standing Committee were useful and informative. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are grateful to him for paying us compliments. He said that we have moved in the right direction and have got it right. It is always nice for Ministers to be told that they have got something right.
My hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Dorset, North pointed to the best possible use of simplified planning zones in the more industrial areas rather than green fields. I accept what they said. Indeed, similar proposals were put to us several times during the passage of the Bill, both in this House and in another place. I understand their deeply held concern that simplified

planning zones should not be set up in areas where no development stimulus is needed or wanted. The Government recognised that concern by accepting a n amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to prevent simplified planning zones from being set up in truly defined sensitive areas such as national parks, green belts, conservation areas, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Minister of State and I were happy to agree with the amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have power to make an order preventing simplified planning zones from being set up where they are obviously not suitable. He will be prepared to use that power where necessary. I make that clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North.
It would be too restrictive for the Bill to provide that SPZs may never be set up outside a closely defined industrial area. There may be occasions on which an SPZ scheme providing, perhaps, for mixed development would be appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that the procedures for adopting SPZs are thorough and will ensure that attention is drawn to any unsuitable proposals which can be modified or, if necessary, stopped. That is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. It is important that the Secretary of State should have these powers and be prepared to use them. There is a town not a thousand miles from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North where there seems to be an inordinate number of developers, estate agents and similar people on the local authority. We are concerned about such areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 77 agreed to.

Clause 18

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 34, line 36, at end insert—
(3) For the purposes of this section any land to which this subsection applies but which is not operational land of statutory undertakers authorised to carry on a harbour undertaking shall be treated as if it were such operational land.
(4) Subsection (3) above applies—

(a) to a wharf; and
(b) to harbour land,

as defined in the Harbours Act 1964.
(5) Any question whether subsection (3) above applies to land shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the Minister who is the appropriate Minister in relation to operational land of statutory undertakers who are authorised to carry on harbour undertakings.

Mr. Tracey: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 79 to 133 and 215 to 220.

Mr. John Powley: Members of the Committee will recall that I moved some amendments in Committee to which the Minister gave a favourable


response. On Report, he gave an undertaking that amendments reflecting the comments that had been made in Committee would be moved in the other place.
I commend and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the diligent way in which he dealt with the concerns expressed in Committee on behalf of people who would have been involved in the hazardous substances arrangements. The amendments that have been moved and that I hope will be accepted satisfy the anxieties that were expressed. They will enable the companies involved to proceed much more satisfactorily, and I believe that the Bill will be greatly improved as a result of the amendments.

Mr. Tracey: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) for the way in which he pursued the matter in Committee. Since then we have discussed it in detail with the Confederation of British Industry, the local authority associations, the Royal Town Planning Institute, and the British Ports Association. We arrived at what I believe is an acceptable solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 79 to 134 agreed to.

Clause 28

LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS

Lords amendment: No. 135, in page 74, line 16, at end insert—
"(aa) the scope of the exception for urgent works to a listed building;

Mr. Tracey: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 137, 145, 147 to 149, 232, 234 to 240, 243 and 244.

Mr. Tracey: This group of amendments does not need much explanation. Amendments Nos. 135, 137, 145 and 147 to 149 are simply additions or drafting amendments to the list of items in clauses 28 and 36, which are the subject of amendments to schedule 7, parts I and II.
Amendment No. 232 replaces the amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) with a revised version that keeps the good points of my hon. Friend's amendment but removes the parts that were unacceptable to us snd strengthens the subjection generally. There are some occasions when demolition is the only way of making a building safe quickly, and we considered that it was wrong to remove the defence given by section 55(6) entirely if demolition has taken place. We trust that the new wording will reduce the opportunities for abuse of the defence. Amendment No. 240 is a similar amendment to the Scottish provisions.
In addition, in England and Wales, through amendment No. 234, we have taken a power to require authorities to consider using their repairs powers before seeking a dangerous structures notice or order and we made it clear that such orders or notices do not override listed building control.
Amendment No. 238 and the consequential amendment No. 239 fulfil a promise given to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England that there would be a statutory requirement to consult it before

a direction is made leaving decisions on listed building consent cases to authorities to decide. Amendments 235, 236, 237 243, and 244 are technical amendments adding section numbers of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to the lists of sections which may be applied to unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Mr. Chapman: It would be ungenerous of me if I did not thank my hon. Friend the Minister once again for being sympathetic and for considering the criticisms I made of the Bill in Committee. He has examined those parts of what I said that he felt he could accept and those which, on balance, he felt he could not accept. It would be extremely pettifogging and carping of me to insist that my original amendments should be carried. My hon. Friend has got it right and it is purely a matter of detail if we disagree on the exact interpretation of some of the details.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 136 to 142 agreed to.

New Clause

AREAS WHICH MAY BE DESIGNATED URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Lords amendment: No. 143, after clause 33 insert the following new clause—
. In section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (power to designate urban development areas), omit subsection (2) (which restricts the power to land in metropolitan districts and certain land in or adjacent to inner London).

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I apologise for my debut being at the eleventh hour. However, as the House will know, last month 1 proposed a major new initiative to bring prosperity back to some of our northern cities by setting up four new urban development corporations. I do not want to debate that at length now because the House will be able to debate each proposal on the relevant order as it comes forward. I am sure that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), whom I congratulate on his re-election to the shadow Cabinet and retention of his portfolio, will welcome this initiative, especially after what he said two weeks' ago at the conference of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He said:
Blighted and derelict land has disfigured many urban centres for decades, prevented from development by cumbersome and often secretive planning and decision-making mechanisms.
I entirely agree.
The amendment was moved in another place as soon as the Government had decided to seek to set up four further urban development corporations. One of these is proposed for Teesside. Under the legislation as it now stands, an urban development corporation in England may be set up only in a metropolitan county or in inner London. An urban development corporation may be set up anywhere in Scotland or Wales.
Teesside is within the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland. The amendment removes the English restrictions so that an urban development corporation can be set up anywhere in the kingdom where it is justified. This would give England equality of treatment with Scotland


and Wales. That was the Government's intention in the 1980 Act. The restriction for England was inserted when the legislation went through the House.
Although the scope of the amendment is narrow — whether I should be empowered to lay an order proposing the setting-up of an urban development corporation in a non-metropolitan area—whether there should be such a corporation will of course be for Parliament to decide. This is not the time or place to prejudge that question for any particular area. But I would not expect anyone to argue that the problems of Teesside are in any way less significant than those in metropolitan areas. It is clearly nonsense that this important means of tackling areas of major urban dereliction should not be available in Teesside. In due course I shall propose a Teesside UDC to the House, and the House will then have the opportunity to debate the principle.

Mr. Rooker: As the Secretary of State said, this is not an appropriate time or place for a debate on urban development corporations. They can be useful instruments, but they are not useful if their prime purpose is deliberately to bypass or ignore local authorities and the needs and wishes of the people. Our sincere wish and hope is that that will not happen. So far, there is no indication that it will, but we could not support the proposal if it did.
In certain areas, regeneration will not take place without a comprehensive strategy and a concentration of resources. It is ludicrous that, if an area falls outside a metropolitan area, based upon a map drawn years ago, it cannot benefit from a concentration of resources.
We are not interested in any diminution of democratic authority or control. In due course all the powers granted to UDCs will return to local authorities. We do not put a time limit or make a claim about that, but it will happen. It would be ludicrous to oppose the extension of this legislation, because of the identification of the tragic dereliction on Teesside. We shall have a wider debate on the issue at a more appropriate time. I do not enter a caveat on the proposal, nor do I welcome it. I just wanted to make a brief statement explaining that we understand the need to concentrate resources and to work out a comprehensive strategy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I appreciate that the Government now recognise that the need for urban renewal and regeneration goes beyond the traditional confines of the inner cities. One of the most important statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his recent report was that the outer urban areas often experience greater deprivation than the inner urban areas. There are many such areas in this part of the country and elsewhere. Strategies for urban renewal and regeneration should apply anywhere.
I am the only hon. Member in the House at present who represents a constituency within one of the two existing urban development corporation areas. The history of the last five years shows that the UDCs bring both advantages and disadvantages. There is inadequate co-ordination in south London, and Southwark in particular. I hope that the experience of those five years will be learnt as the Secretary of State formulates his plans for the four new UDC areas. We shall have an opportunity to debate the urban development corporations. We look forward to that opportunity and welcome it.
Two principles are more strongly argued and upheld in the proposals than before. First, the new urban

development corporations are to act in partnership with the local authorities as well as with the private sector to bring in additional money. So far the urban development corporations have often seemed to act over the head of, and not in partnership with, local authorities. Secondly, consultation with the people who live there should be started from the beginning. One problem with the London Docklands Development Corporation was that at the beginning there was an inadequate framework of consultation with local people to enable the existing communities to be reinforced, upheld, strengthened and supported. I hope that the proposals will change that, and that the Secretary of State will respond to the anxieties that have been horn out of the experience of our two development corporations. A strategy is now needed to do much more for urban regeneration and renewal of our devastated economy.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I rise briefly to support the Government in this move. It has long been an anomaly that all areas needing urban regeneration were thought to be in the metropolitan counties or in London. Cleveland is certainly ripe for this initiative. I was once a parliamentary candidate in Cleveland and I have retained my affection and links with the area. I wish to place on record my tribute to the leader of the Conservatives on Stockton council, Councillor Laurie Wild, who has done much to campaign for this measure. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State places the appropriate order before the House, new prosperity will come to that area.

Mr. Ridley: I wish to respond briefly to the points which have been made. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for welcoming the proposal. It is a major proposal. It involves considerable expense, and so its importance must not be underestimated.
I wish to reply to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Southwark and Bermondsey who made almost the same points about the proposal. My reply is that there are representatives of local authorities on the London Docklands Development Corporation and on the Merseyside Development Corporation. That could be taken as a precedent, but local authority members should not dominate the hoard of any new urban development corporation. Every encouragement will be given to local authorities that wish to cooperate with a UDC. But, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, some local authorities have appeared to try to frustrate this sort of development and in that case we shall push on. We are determined that nothing shall the stop the redevelopment of these areas. If a local authority wants to help, it will be very welcome, but if it does not the work must still be done.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey talks about the people. This amendment is about Teesside, and the area we have in mind does not have one inhabitant. It is completely derelict on both sides of the river. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West will know it well. If anybody argued that anyone should be stopped from developing that area, he would be off his head.
We really do mean business in establishing the development corporations and in putting money into


them. We shall make a determined effort to bring back the sort of conditions under which people want to build houses, factories, shops, leisure centres—every sort of development — and to give every chance for economic recovery in those areas.
I confess to a slight prejudice in this matter, coming myself from the north-east. This is the only way, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey acknowledges, to concentrate and co-ordinate the efforts of all Government and local government departments, with the necessary resources to achieve the rejuvenation that the House wants to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 244 agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Schedule 8

LOCAL PLANS AND UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Lords amendment: No. 245, in page 146, leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert—
(5) A local planning authority may prepare a local plan for a part of their area (an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, by development, redevelopment or improvement of the whole or part of the area selected, or partly by one method and partly by another; and a local plan prepared for such an action area shall indicate the nature of the treatment selected for the area.

Mr. Tracey: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 246, 261 to 263 and 265.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the effect of amendment No. 245 be to allow local authorities, not merely to produce plans for the whole of that authority—this was altered in recent legislation—but to allow them to proceed with parts of their authority in turn, if they are not ready or do not wish to provide plans for the whole area? There used to be area or district statutory plans. That was changed and the change affected London boroughs which had to make only a borough-wide local plan. Will they be able to return to having plans covering areas smaller than the whole borough or district as a result of the proposal? What effect will the amendment have on borough or district councils?

Mr. Tracey: This is a drafting amendment and proposes the substitution in new section 11(5) of the 1971 legislation of a revised text, dealing with local plans for action areas. That is more faithful to the present provisions of the 1971 legislation. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that at some stage the Minister will elaborate on how the matter relates to other statutory planning functions of local authorities.

Mr. Tracey: I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify any of those points.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 246 to 321 agreed to.

Domestic Violence

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Chris Smith: In January 1986 the working party established by the Metropolitan police into domestic violence against women in their own homes reported to Scotland Yard. That working party, which had seven serving police officers headed by a chief inspector and three outside members, produced an illuminating, interesting and positive report. The report has not yet been published or implemented. I have received a copy of it, and with that in mind I have requested this debate. It reveals the staggering scale of the problem.
The report says that the statistics about the number of incidents of violence against women by their husbands or partners in their own homes in the metropolis are inadequate and inaccurate. It estimates that something like 28,000 calls a year about incidents of domestic violence are made to police stations in London. It records that those calls probably represent only a quarter to a third of the overall number of incidents that occur. That is because many women are understandably reluctant to call outside help, let alone police help, in such difficult and dangerous circumstances.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Smith: Looking at the statistics in the report, we can only conclude that there must be something like 100,000 incidents of domestic violence in London each year. That is a staggering problem and the House and the Metropolitan police should be worried about it. A working party was established, it took a great deal of evidence from outside organisations, and it produced a remarkable report. I commend the Metropolitan police for having established that working party. I also commend the working party for producing a report couched in remarkably progressive language. It puts forward a series of sensible and important recommendations. However, that report has remained on desks in Scotland Yard and presumably in the Home Office—because, of course, the Home Secretary is the police authority for the metropolis—for the past 10 months. Why is it that with a problem of such importance and when so many women throughout London are at risk no action has been taken since January?
The report contains some urgent recommendations, many of which could have been implemented immediately. One must ask why the delay has occurred. Has the delay been at Scotland Yard or at the Home Office? Is Scotland Yard, as it has been quoted in some newspapers in the last few days as saying, waiting for some national policy directive from the Home Office? Has the delay occurred because no one has understood and appreciated the importance of the issue that is under discussion?
Can the Minister tell us exactly how the delay has occurred and whether it will be possible for the recommendations in the report to be implemented as rapidly as the Home Office and Scotland Yard between them can manage?
What needs to be done? First, attitudes need to change. The report is a damning indictment of the attitude of many


police officers in the metropolis towards domestic violence. It is quite clear from passages in the report that many serving police officers see violence against a woman in her own home as less worthy of their attention and less important than, for example, violence on the street. That cannot be the case. Violence is violence whether it happens within the confines of one's own home or on the streets of London. The police response in each case must be one of concern for the victim and a desire to prevent any further occurrence of such violence.
The report contains some staggering comments and I shall read one or two of them because they are illuminating. The report says:
What is of importance is the persistent trend to underreport to police coupled with the fact that many of those who had reported to police find them unhelpful.
It quotes an article which says:
The Police emerged as the least helpful of all the main agencies to which women turned for help before going to the refuge … Except in cases of very severe injury, the helpfulness of the police reflected neither the severity of the injuries, nor the frequency with which the woman had been assaulted in the past.
Under the training section, the report says:
Knowledge of the law and police procedure is somewhat vague as far as many District officers are concerned, to say nothing of the lack of empathy expressed towards victims of domestic violence during their encounters with the police.
Further on, the report says:
There seems to be generally a sense of frustration when the Police are called to incidents of domestic violence, particularly if there has to be more than one call to the same home. There appears to be little understanding of the predicament of the woman living in violent or potentially violent situations.
There are many other examples of such criticism, but just one more, which is perhaps the most revealing paragraph in the report, will suffice. It says:
On being questioned, many Police Officers felt that Domestic Violence should not be part of their work at all. Any situation of that kind was seen as being (generally) just a waste of time. (Another view of this kind of work was that it was no help whatsoever when applying for other posts or promotion).
It is quite clear from the report, which, it should be remembered, has been prepared by the police, that police attitudes to domestic violence fall far short of the seriousness with which the problem ought to be addressed.
The first and major question that we have to ask the Home Office and Scotland Yard is, "Will you please ensure by all means possible that serving police officers throughout the force treat violence against women in their own home with the seriousness that it deserves?" Changing the attitudes that are revealed by the report is crucial. It is a task of the utmost priority for the Home Office.
Secondly, and allied to changing attitudes, there is the need to change the training programme and the procedures for new recruits and existing officers in the Metropolitan police. It is by training that the police can become able to deal sensitively and appropriately with such difficult and often delicate situations as arise when there is domestic violence.
The third aim should be to change the keeping of records. Throughout the report, there is criticism of how current record keeping practices are ignored and inadequate. There must be proper record keeping so that we can all know exactly the extent of the problem and the success or failure of the police in assisting the victims of domestic violence.
Fourthly, a simple proposal in the report reveals that, at the moment, police mileage allowance regulations forbid a police vehicle being used to transport a woman who has just been the victim of an assault in her home to a safe refuge. A police car in London cannot be used to take her to safety. Surely that is nonsense. The police could improve matters overnight by changing the regulations so that cars can be used for that purpose. The report says that that has already been done in Cleveland. That bit of good practice should be used here as of tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment to that effect.
Fifthly, we must ensure that police officers know about all the other referral agencies that are available to help victims of domestic violence. It is surely right and proper that the widest possible range of advice and counselling should be available in such difficult circumstances, and the police—because they are often the first agency to be called to the scene—must be able to refer to other suitable, proper and good agencies.
The final recommendation that I draw to the Home Secretary's attention is the recommendation that as third parties to a dispute the police should be more prepared to prosecute the violent man. The report quotes extensively from Canadian experience in Ontario where this has been attempted and been found to be very successful indeed. Frequently it is difficult for a woman in such circumstances to bring her own prosecution. Often there is a need to try to heal the relationship as well as to attempt to prevent any recurrence of the violence. In those circumstances it is surely helpful that any prosecution aimed at preventing a further occurrence should come not from the woman herself but from the police.
That is now possible under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The police have the power to bring that sort of prosecution. Evidence from Canada suggests that it could be very successful in reducing the level of violence and in helping to resolve the problem when it occurs.

Mr. John Whitfield: Except in the most extreme case, are not the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in his excellent speech matters for the social services rather than the concern of our hard-pressed police forces?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the severity of the problem in many cases. He also fails to understand that in many of these instances the police are the first line of call because they are a 24-hour service, and very few other agencies are. Therefore, it is surely important for the police to have the knowledge of how to deal with these instances and occurrences.
What is more, I am sure the hon Gentleman would agree that when violence is occasioned, it is a crime. The police are supposed to fight crime as well as to deter it. Where violence occurs against a women in her home, it is still violence, just as it is if it occurs outside the home.
Of course, other agencies must be involved, and ultimately we are talking not just about police involvement, but about social services involvement, voluntary agency involvement and probably probation involvement. However, the police are part and parcel of that multi-agency approach which will be needed. Where violence is occasioned to a person, the police can and must be involved. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that extremely important point.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Surely it is worth noting that especially in the last two or thee years the police have become involved in areas where hitherto they have not been involved—for example, on the rugby field. There was also a recent incident on the football field. Previously such violence went unnoticed, or at least it was not tackled by the police, yet increasingly they are now moving into such areas. If they can do that, surely they should move into the area that my hon. Friend is describing so well.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot have one standard of law, justice and violence prevention for inside the home or on the football field and another for outside. This is something about which many women have been concerned for a long time. The traditional male attitude is that there is a privacy to the home and there are rights connected with marriage that somehow protect the man when being violent towards his wife or partner. That attitude must be changed. Violence towards one's partner is just as bad and reprehensible as violence to a stranger in the street.
The Ontario experience shows that when the police decide to prosecute it assists in reducing violence and preventing further cases of assault. The report recommends that a pilot project should be established in one London district. I hope that the Home Office and Scotland Yard will carefully consider the implementation of that recommendation as soon as possible.
I have drawn those six basic recommendations from the Metropolitan police's report. I cannot stress too stongly that this is the Metropolitan police's own report which was published in January 1986. I shall add three other recommendations to those of the Metropolitan police. First, there ought to be — certainly for London—a 24-hour telephone line made available for women. They should be able to phone in with any account of violence, rape or difficulty that they have experienced. That line should be specifically for women, and it should be handled by women at the other end of the line. That would increase dramatically women's confidence in reporting incidents of this kind to the police. That must be for the better.
Secondly, I hope that the Home Office will commit itself to increasing the proportion of women officers within the Metropolitan police force. At the moment, 10 per cent. of the Metropolitan police are women. Of 26 commanders, only two are women. The standing, culture and nature of the Metropolitan police would be greatly improved if there were more women officers. I hope that the Home Office has it in mind to increase the proportion of women who form part of the Metropolitan police.
Thirdly, a greater number of safe refuges is also needed for women who are subjected to violence. That involves money and resources. It means setting up refuges and ensuring that they are properly run and staffed and that space is made available in them for women who have been subjected to violence. I hope that the Government are committed to assisting that process.
This report has lain on the table for far too long. The problem is massive and urgent. Many women fear the threat of violence and they risk violence and assault within their homes. All of us ought to be concerned about preventing and deterring violence and we ought to try to assist in preventing it. The report offers a way of doing so. I hope that the Home Office and Scotland Yard will

tonight commit themselves to taking immediate steps to provide help in a much more rapid and sensitive way than I fear has happened since this report was published.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for having adopted this subject for the Adjournment debate. He has argued his points in a remarkably cogent, lucid and persuasive manner. If some of his hon. Friends did likewise, they would carry more weight in this place.
The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on violence to women. For a whole variety of reasons, this country is more conscious than it has been in the past that this is a major problem and that not all of us have responded in entirely the way that one would have wished. However, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman to some extent. I shall not give the authoritative commitment that he has invited me to give.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the report prepared by the Metropolitan police. I shall start by making a number of preliminary remarks about that report. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the report was made by the Metropolitan police; it is not a Home Office document. I do not accept that there has been any delay by the Home Office in any regard.
Secondly, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact that the Metropolitan police commissioned the report and invited outsiders to serve on the working group demonstrates the force's willingness to look at its practices and procedures with a critical eye. The Metropolitan police are willing to introduce changes when they are necessary.
Thirdly, the implementation of the report is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who will, doubtless, wish to consider the report in the context of the Home Office circular that was issued last month. Because this is a matter for the commissioner, it would be wrong for me to seek, at least at this stage, to express a positive view on any recommendation. However, I was pleased to hear the positive declaration of intent made today by Detective Superintendent Street on "The World at One" programme on which the hon. Gentleman also appeared. I welcome the positive statement by the superintendent that he regards the recommendations as "relevant and necessary" and that the Metropolitan police intend to put them into practice. That seemed to me to be a positive way forward and I support it.
After those preliminary remarks, I wish to consider what the police are doing about domestic violence and what more they should be doing. All of us who have practised law, as I think the hon. Gentleman has—

Mr. Chris Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not done so. I thought that he had. I am sure that he agrees that domestic violence is one of the most difficult problems that the police have to deal with.
It is right and necessary that hon. Members and Ministers should assert the basic proposition that an act of violence committed by one spouse against another is as much an offence as is an act of violence committed against


a stranger. I do not wish any hon. Member to try to argue that violence against a spouse should be regarded as less serious than violence against a stranger.
Indeed, in many cases, especially those involving families with children or when there are continuing offences, the violence shown by one spouse to another is more serious than violence shown to a stranger. There are special reasons why that is so. In many cases, a wife depends on her husband for her home and income and for the home and income of her children. She has no escape. Frequently, when a spouse summons the police it is a cry for help at the end of a long period of provocation.
The Government recognised those facts and have introduced two substantive changes in the law this year to improve the position. The hon. Gentleman will know well that on 1 January the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force. In this context there are two provisions in the Act that are of special importance. First, we have enhanced the powers of arrest so that the police can arrest to prevent future and prospective violence. This is a great improvement on what was previously the position. Secondly, and perhaps equally as important, the Act provides that a spouse is not merely a competent witness but a compellable witness in a trial. The Government have, by their legislative programme, accepted many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and have changed the law so as to accommodate them.
The law itself cannot provide a complete answer to the problem and it is necessary for us all to face and recognise the difficulties that confront police officers. It often happens that police are called to homes by worried neighbours or distraught wives, and when they arrive at the scene the friction dies down and the police are perceived as being outsiders, to be treated with a degree of suspicion, if not hostility. There are a variety of reasons for this. Sometimes the victim may call the police as a sort of warning to her spouse. The noisy dispute which alerts neighbours may in reality be no more than that, a noisy dispute. Even when a spouse has been the subject of assault, quite frequently the desire for reconciliation is much stronger than the desire to have the man prosecuted. Therefore, we must recognise and accept the special problems that confront police officers in these circumstances.
When a police officer attends a scene it is often not clear to him whether an act of violence has occurred or whether one is likely to occur. A wife in tears and a broken chair

may suggest violence, but it may suggest also a row in which the man broke his own property. I make the point to try to stress the evidential difficulties which face these officers and not to undermine the hon. Gentleman's arguments or those which I have advanced already.
Nor is it helpful to speak in terms of cases that the police might bring. Throughout the criminal law there is a range of cases that the police might bring, but for reasons of good public policy it is often desirable to proceed with no more than a caution. Frequently a caution is a sufficient response. We must be clear, however, that the safety of the spouse and that of her children must be the paramount consideration. At all times, and whenever the police attend the scene of an incident of this sort, they must be alert to the possibility of prospective violence.
It was on that basis that we responded to the recommendations of the Women's National Commission, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner) and produced a most distinguished report. In response to the recommendations, the Government issued a circular on 15 October, a copy of which is now to be found in the Library. There are a number of matters I wish to mention because they go a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's concern. First, we have asked the police to give priority in cases of domestic violence to the overriding need to ensure the safety of victims and to reduce the risk of further violence. This can be done by arresting the offender if necessary or desirable under the enhanced powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We have asked chief police officers to consider providing practical help to victims by putting them in touch with local authority support agencies. We have recommended that substantial changes should be made in the practice of recording no crime. Incidents should be recorded as no crime only if there is positive evidence of fabrication or withdrawal. Insufficient evidence itself is not a reason for showing no crime.
In summary, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. We recognise that it is important and I hope and believe that what we have done is part of a process whereby this problem and area of difficulty will be tackled and accordingly the life of victims will be a great deal better.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.